Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Technology Curriculum

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to present the revised statutory order governing national curriculum technology.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I expect to present to the House a revised statutory order by the end of the summer term 1993, following statutory consultation on our proposals by the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State accept that if his predecessors had worked with teachers, such drastic revision would not have been necessary? Therefore, will he work with the people responsible for implementing the technology curriculum to ensure that such changes work?

Mr. Patten: I am extremely grateful for all the hard work done by teachers to make that and other parts of the national curriculum work. In the past, all syllabuses have been changed and developed, as they will be in future. The aim of the proposed revision, which will be out for consultation, is to ensure a tilt from the theoretical to the applied. As my hon. Friends and I have made numerous visits to schools, we have gained the impression that such a change is much needed.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made in relation to the development of the programme of local management of schools in Lancashire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): Local management of schools is progressing well in Lancashire. All primary and secondary schools have been funded by formula since April 1990. Most now have delegated budgets and all will have full management powers from 1994.

Mr. Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a sixth-form college in Blackpool that has been conspicuously successful in local management as it has enabled the headmaster, staff and governors to employ local tradesmen at a far more competitive cost to make improvements to the school more quickly than would have

happened in the days of the old local education authority bureaucracies? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I hope to have an opportunity to show him or one of his ministerial colleagues that sixth-form college when they are next in the district?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that positive and encouraging message. It fits in exactly with the experiences of my right hon. Friend and myself as we visited schools and colleges up and down the country, where the message that we received was that local management was working well. It is giving school managers the opportunity to take responsibility and use it to the benefit of their school. I believe that the example given by my hon. Friend should be an inspiration to schools and colleges up and down the country, and I cannot wait to visit the college.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the majority of schools in Lancashire feel that the biggest problem with LMS is that the Government have provided insufficient cash resources? If there are insufficient cash resources in the first instance, schools cannot carry out the job. Will he recognise the problem caused by stable staff who are higher salaried, which puts severe pressure on the cash-limited budget?

Mr. Forth: That exchange could not sum up better the difference between Conservative and Labour Members. We heard from a Conservative Member who was proud of the achievements of his local education system and of a specific college. All we hear from a Labour Member is the tired, routine whingeing that we have become so used to. It really is not good enough; it really will not do. The other lesson that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has yet to learn is that there is no established connection between expenditure and quality of education. Resources will be available where appropriate, but we look to school managers and teachers to go for quality, which is what we want from them.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend consider the special requirements of children with special needs in Lancashire? Is he aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report slamming local authorities for their failure to account for the performance of children with special needs?

Mr. Forth: That is an important matter. I pay tribute to the personal and political commitment that my hon. Friend has made over many years to it. I defer to his judgment on it. I am aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report and of its contents. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had a lot to say about it recently in another place. She, the Secretary of State and I are working together to ensure that the delivery of education to children with special needs is of the best. We shall shortly have some important proposals to make which I am sure will please my hon. Friend and many others.

Selection

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any proposals to reintroduce selection at 11 years throughout the country.

Mr. Patten: We have consistently made it clear that the Government do not intend to impose any particular


organisational pattern for schools. It is, in the first instance, for local education authorities and school governors to establish the organisation most appropriate for their area, in the light of local needs and the wishes of parents and the community. That is why today there are, for example, at least 117 grammar schools maintained by 24 of the 109 LEAs in England, with a further 40 grammar schools in the grant-maintained sector. There are some 30 so-called bilateral schools in the country, which operate a mixed pattern of selective and non-selective admissions arrangements, as well as three technical schools and 13 city technology colleges. There are also comprehensive schools that select some pupils suited to particular specialisms offered by those schools.

Mr. Callaghan: I listened with great interest to that statement about the 11-plus. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated on the BBC "On the Record" programme that he would be delighted to see grammar schools flourishing, and given what is happening with the 11-plus in the Wandsworth area, does the Secretary of State intend to reintroduce the selective process by stealth through the schools opt-out system?

Mr. Patten: Many schools in the maintained and grant-maintained system are considering or developing specialisms in particular areas. That should be welcomed, because it liberates the talents of all our children. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the antediluvian, neo-clause 4 arguments of the late 1960s which he has just raised from the grave are wholly unsuitable for purposes of comparison with the early 1990s. We have as a guarantee of good-quality education the national curriculum, nationally assessed and inspected, for all our children. There will be no second-tier schools in this country by the time we have finished.

Mr. Bowls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that selection is wilfully misunderstood by some Opposition Members and that if there is no selection there is no way to match pupils and their abilities to the courses available in the students' best interests? Will he therefore warmly endorse the selection by aptitude which is the basis of Wandsworth's selection process?

Mr. Patten: I am extremely interested in what is going on in Wandsworth, as all of us in the Conservative party always are. I must not fetter my discretion for a later stage when these proposals for a change of character come before me, but it is open to maintained schools—grant-maintained or local education authority-maintained —to introduce a large measure of specialism without having to come to the Secretary of State for permission to do so—just as comprehensive schools throughout the country can, I am advised, if they so wish, select small numbers of pupils by aptitude for particular subjects if that is what the local community wants. There is a rich diversity of provision, and so there should be.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State would do well to learn an original script between one Question Time and another. May I remind him that he criticised my views on selection on the last occasion? May I congratulate him on his decision not to introduce selection at the Castle Hall school in Mirfield and ask him to resist both proposals from the right-wing extremists behind him and all attempts to introduce selection by the back door in grant-maintained schools? The arguments are known; selection

is wasteful and divisive, and the improvement in our staying-on rates and in the additional numbers in higher education have derived from a predominantly comprehen-sive system. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that and drop this 19th century idea of selection?

Mr. Patten: As for the Castle Hall school decision, it is open to the school to re-apply at an early stage, having reconsidered the basis of its first application.
I have visited many of our excellent comprehensive schools and I am extremely grateful to the teachers and other staff in them for the good quality of education that they provide. I have found time and again when visiting comprehensive schools that the staff are selecting children for streaming because of their particular aptitudes. Selection is part and parcel of what goes on within much of the comprehensive system. It would do the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) well to recognise that.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure he has for the number of pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of secondary schools have been granted or have now applied for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Patten: The total number of pupils currently being educated in grant-maintained schools is estimated to be 160,000.
The proportion of all secondary schools to have been granted grant-maintained status is 5.6 per cent., and 6.7 per cent. of all secondary schools have now applied for grant-maintained status. A total of 417 secondary schools have held or are committed to hold a ballot. This represents already just over 10 per cent. of all secondary schools. I can report to the House also that there have been about 2,000 inquiries to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust since the general election seeking further informa-tion on grant-maintained status. There are now about 150 inquiries a day.

Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend help to increase the number of pupils at grant-maintained schools by dealing speedily and favourably with an application from Bushloe high school in my constituency? Is he aware that the application is made not on the basis of right-wing remarks or attitudes but because the pupils' parents, be they Liberal, Labour or Conservative, realise that the best chance of a good education within the school is provided by grant-maintained status?

Mr. Patten: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I note that his constituency has only one grant-maintained school within it so far, and that is Gartree school. It is an excellent school and I congratulate it on its progress. I hope that the number of grant-maintained schools in the constituency may soon be doubled. I look forward to receiving the application to which my hon. Friend has referred.
My hon. Friend should warn parents who support whichever of the political parties that he named that, despite recent reports in the national press of a change of heart by those on the Opposition Front Bench over


grant-mintained schools, and notwithstanding the warning that is contained in a document that those on the Opposition Front Bench have produced for some of the most extremist Labour authorities not to get in the way by pursuing guerrilla warfare tactics against schools that wish to go grant maintained, they reiterate in the document their total opposition to the principle of grant-maintained schools. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is positively antediluvian in wishing to go back further than the 19th century.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Secretary of State aware that opting out is threatening the proper management of secondary schools, to the detriment of pupils? Will he explain how the centralisation of secondary education will benefit choice and standards and provide opportunities?

Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) he would have heard a pretty accurate description of the wide range and diversity of choice that is available already and on which, I think, schools in the grant-maintained sector will build. I hear, for example, that some schools wish to teach technology bilingually in English and German. That is a marvellous idea. Let us see many more ideas of that sort coming forward from the grant-maintained sector.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increasing number of young people in grant-maintained schools is a clear sign of the success of those schools? Does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent an admirable opportunity for specialisation? For example, we have inner-city schools specialising in music, science, technology and mathematics. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that these schools represent an excellent opportunity to improve the quality and standard of state education, the sector in which the majority of children are educated?

Mr. Patten: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not in his place, I think that I can risk saying that if schools want to specialise in ballet—[Interruption.] Oh, he is here. It is too late; I cannot bite on my tongue. If schools want to specialise in ballet, music, performing arts, science or languages, so be it.
I repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) what I said earlier: on many occasions there is no need for schools to apply to the Secretary of State for a change of character. Generally speaking, specialisation can be developed without an application for a change of character, as can the development of a few places for pupils with a particular aptitude for certain subjects in which a school wishes to specialise.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for all the spin that he tried to put on his figures, since the general election just 56 schools out of a potential 24,000 have decided to ballot to opt out? That takes us right through to October. Does not that figure show that, far from there being an avalanche of opting out since the election, a great many parents have seen through the rhetoric of opt-out and realise that opting out will lead to no improvement in standards, a loss of parental choice and tight central controls from Whitehall?

Mr. Patten: With inquiries coming in at the rate of 150 a day, that is a pretty surprising remark from the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid to say that in some parts of the country Labour authorities, over which the hon. Gentleman has no control, have been trying to do all that they possibly can to stop local schools going for grant-maintained status. I promise the House that in the next education Bill to be introduced in the autumn we will introduce measures to put a stop to that.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of grant-maintained schools is that they reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, which is to the benefit of the schools and results in less money being spent on administration and more on teaching?

Mr. Patten: That is why we must try to spend as much money as possible on pupils and as little money as possible on administration. That is not to say that good administration is not needed under a local education authority or a grant-maintained system—of course it is. We need better management and better leadership from those who run our schools. That is something which we need to promote during the next five years.

Teachers' Pay

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any further plans to meet teachers' union representatives to discuss teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patten: I expect to meet the teacher unions again early next year to discuss the second report of the school teachers review body.

Mr. Skinner: When the Secretary of State meets the teacher unions, will he tell them that he intends to restore teachers' negotiating status in matters affecting their pay and conditions? Does he recall that before the general election the review body offered the teachers 7.8 per cent? After the election another review body gives the judges, the generals and the top civil servants 30 per cent. Is not that an example of the double standards being operated by the Government? Are not teachers just as important to society as judges and generals? What has all this to do with the classless society? Give the teachers the same.

Mr. Patten: I congratulate the interim Leader of the Opposition on this excellent question. At least we are getting some opposition from below the Gangway. I would vote for the hon. Gentleman if I had the chance—I think. Before the general election the 7.8 per cent. pay award announced by the teachers review body was warmly welcomed by five out of the six teacher trade unions. Needless to say, the National Union of Teachers did not care for it much, and we have heard the NUT's song sung this afternoon by the interim Leader of the Opposition. The pay review arrangements are working well and I look forward, as I am bound statutorily to do, to meeting the trade unions in due course to hear what they have to say, but the decision is for the review body. Since 1979, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation. It fell between 1975 and 1979.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend regard the vacancy rate among teachers as a clue to the adequacy of teachers' remuneration and will he say what the signs are in that respect?

Mr. Patten: As I have just said, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation since 1979. That is ahead of the general average in adult earnings. The average salary for a schoolteacher—there are 400,000 of them in Britain at the moment, a considerable number—is some £20,000. The vacancy level is lower than it has been for more than a decade, which is good news.

Mr. Andrew Smith: As the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about pay review bodies, why does he fail to apply to the higher education sector the logic that he adopts in respect of schoolteachers? Why does he not establish a pay review body for university teachers, as he has been urged to do by them and by many Conservative as well as Opposition Members?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman represents the other half of the university city that embraces my constituency, he knows that pay negotiations are currently under way. There are many more universities and polytechnics than ever before, and they are developing very well. Record numbers are staying on in higher and further education. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, the number was about 220,000. The figure today is about 800,000. Universities today derive a substantial proportion of their incomes from sources other than the Government, which gives them much more flexibility when dealing with pay.

GCSE

Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for GCSE; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is wholly satisfied with the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for the GCSE.

Mr. Madel: As the efficient use of teachers' time is so important in raising GCSE standards, can my hon. Friend confirm that although tests at 14 are important, they will not get in the way of or disturb essential classroom work on raising GCSE standards?

Mr. Forth: The tests for 14-year-olds are straightfor-ward for teachers to administer and to mark, and are economical of their time. The tests are not expected to encroach significantly on the time that teachers can devote to their GCSE pupils. That is not to say that the marking and manageability of the test will not be examined closely before we settle the detailed arrangements for testing 14-year-olds in 1993. I emphasise that the test results will give teachers hard, objective information about each pupil's strengths and weaknesses, which will provide pupils with the best possible start to their GCSE courses. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I can reassure him that there is no problem or incompatibility.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence he has of schools operating local management of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.

Mr. Forth: The Department receives some letters from governors and headteachers expressing concern about their school budgets, but we have no evidence of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister keeps pretending that there is no evidence that schools are encountering budgetary difficulties, but the budget of one school in Leyton does not match its staff costs, which is creating long-term teacher vacancies and causing early retirements. Does not the Minister acknowledge that the LMS formula discriminates against longer-serving, experienced teachers, because it is based on average teacher costs instead of actual costs—which are higher in many cases? Special measures are needed to help schools that run into LMS difficulties.

Mr. Forth: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman brings such problems to me, but he appears to have bypassed his local education authority somewhere along the line. I suggest that he questions Waltham Forest LEA about the extent to which it delegates school budgets—because it is not yet up to the mark—and the central administration costs that the authority still seems obliged to carry. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade his LEA to sort out those problems, I expect that, under a developed and successful LMS, the very schools to which the hon. Gentleman refers would make better use of their funds, at the level at which expenditure decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman should ask his local education authority the very questions that he put to me.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: As my hon. Friend approaches the three-year LMS review, will he reflect on the fact that in many local education authorities, the formula needs revising in two respects? Although many schools welcome added control over their own budgets, some pressures are emerging. I refer in particular to special educational needs, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, and the question of average and real costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Forth: We have undertaken to examine again the latter point that my hon. Friend raised, but we shall bear it in mind that many LEAs and schools are coping admirably with the changes that are occurring. When making our review, we will bear their managerial successes in mind.
I am happy to reiterate that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have special educational needs very near the top of our agenda. We are always concerned to ensure that special educational needs are dealt with properly, promptly and adequately within the education system—however it may develop. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased when he learns of the developments that we envisage, which we will announce very shortly.

Mr. Don Foster: Many schools in my constituency are in budgetary difficulties because of a 4 per cent. budget cut brought about by poll-tax-capping legislation. According to the county treasurer's estimate, there will be a 10 per cent. cut next year. What advice does the Secretary of State give those schools?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers would advise all such schools to ask their local education authority what it is doing, what its policies are and how it expects matters to develop. Under our system,


local education authorities still rightly carry the bulk of the responsibilities for local decision-making. I would also advise the schools to make inquiries of the kind described earlier by my right hon. Friend and to consider again all the opportunities that are open to them. If they are not satisfied with what their local education authority is doing, they should break free from it.

Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that I have drawn his attention to the problems affecting a number of schools in my constituency after talking to my local education authority about them? Will he bear out the impression given in his letters to me that the Government are taking action on the issue of average, as opposed to actual, salaries?

Mr. Forth: I am certainly conscious of the approaches made by my hon. Friend on behalf of the schools in his constituency. They should come as no surprise to anyone who knows how assiduously he looks after his schools and, indeed, all his constituents.
Through my hon. Friend, I am aware of the transitional difficulties that have occurred in some local education authorities and some schools. We shall consider those problems sympathetically; in the meantime, however, I stress that it is up to local education authorities to find their own answers to meet their local education needs. They must work out the best approach, along with the schools. That must be right, and we would be loth to interfere with it.

Mr. Straw: How can the Minister claim that there is no evidence of the major problems that have been caused by local management of schools? Is he completely marooned in the jacuzzi-swirling glass palace, aptly known as the Sanctuary, that passes for the headquarters of the Department for Education? Is he not aware of the existence of independent evidence showing that parents now have to contribute between £80 million and £100 million from their own pockets to meet the shortcomings of local management? Does he not realise that many schools are being forced to appoint the cheapest teachers and to sack the best as a consequence of the scheme?

Mr. Forth: Had the hon. Gentleman been fortunate enough to occupy the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend, I wonder how long he would have been able to resist that very jacuzzi—were it to exist. Fascinating though it may be, however, that question can exist only in the imagination.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to give the impression that there are widespread problems. Many schools and local education authorities up and down the country are handling local management of schools very well. As we know from our visits to schools—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) confirmed earlier—in many instances local management has been welcomed by governors, teachers and parents. How Opposition Members can be so blind to that escapes me entirely.
Parents are prepared to help schools with funding when they think that it is needed. Opposition Members are completely wrong to see that as something evil; surely it is a signal of the commitment and involvement that parents are prepared to give their schools, and I believe that it is good and healthy.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the smaller primary schools are beginning to have difficulty in balancing the books, not least because the funding formula does not adequately recognise that fixed costs bear disproportionately heavily on the budgets of small schools with fewer pupils? Will he listen sympathetically to the representations that are made to him, and does he agree that smaller primary schools are essential to the lives of the communities that they serve?

Mr. Forth: I can understand the question, that my hon. Friend asked very well indeed, but the balance of expenditure within a local education authority between the secondary and primary sectors is, and must be, very much a matter for that authority to determine. It may well vary from time to time and between one authority and another, but safeguards in the formulae for small schools, and for small primary schools in particular, should operate very much to their advantage. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind, I ask her to let me know about it and I shall consider it to ensure that the school is benefiting as much as it should from the protections that we have put in place.

Social Work Service

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the future of the education social work service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): My right hon. Friend sees a continuing role for the education social work service —more commonly known as the education welfare service —in working with schools, parents and pupils to promote and maintain regular school attendance. The importance of that role is reinforced by new attendance and pupil reporting regulations, which place greater emphasis on the identification of unauthorised absence.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister must be aware that, by any measure, there has been a huge increase in the workload of the education social work service in recent years. What steps are the Government taking to improve staffing levels to take account of its increasing workload? What assessment have they made of the proposed introduction of league tables on truancy for the work of education social workers, and is the Minister aware that that proposal and the direction in which the Government are moving on the issue fly directly in the face of the spirit and intentions of the Children Act 1989?

Mr. Forman: We certainly value the work of the education welfare service. It is very important that its 3,000 officers in England and Wales should continue their supportive work. There is no suggestion that truancy is anything other than a most serious problem which the Government view very seriously, not least because it is estimated that in the worst-affected areas perhaps one in five pupils is truanting at some stage. We shall continue to ensure that the education welfare service does the job for which it is appointed and shall support it through the new regulations to which I referred in my first answer.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the relationship between the education psychology service and the education welfare service, particularly in relation to the need to produce proper statements for children in need? Is he aware of the possible


dangers to the education psychology service from schools opting out, and will he ensure that the service has a future, just as grant-maintained schools also have a future?

Mr. Forman: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Opted-out schools are making use of the service. Furthermore, we believe that it is right to give discretion on these matters to grant-maintained schools so that they can make decisions in the light of their own circumstances.

Nursery Education

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to expand the provision of nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in the provision of nursery education, both independent and state funded, since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Forman: It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for under-fives. Between 1979 and 1991, the number of under-fives in maintained schools in England rose from 429,000 to 604,000, while the number in independent schools rose from 28,000 to 45,000 —an increase of nearly 200,000 children in all.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not an abdication of duty for the Government always to seek to say that it is solely for local authorities to make provision for nursery education? Will the Minister be more positive about what the Government plan to do to encourage and promote the provision of nursery education throughout Britain? Does he accept that there are great variations in provision from one end of the country to the other and that in some areas it is inadequate? Is not one of the best ways of increasing the life chances of children from underpriviliged families to give them statutory access to nursery places if they wish to take them up?

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman should know that the provision of nursery education has increased under the Government from four in 10 to five in 10, which is a very satisfactory increase. He should also take account of the fact that the policy on which his party fought the previous election would have involved a considerable increase in expenditure on such matters—in excess of £500 million —money which could well be spent by local authorities for other purposes within the education budget.

Mr. Brandreth: Although I warmly welcome the increase in expenditure and the diversity in recent years in nursery provision, whereby we are now spending about £740 million a year on the under-fives—

Hon. Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am very keen to get through the Order Paper and I do not like long statements. Straight into the question please.

Mr. Brandreth: The question is, does not my hon. Friend welcome that expenditure, because nursery education is the bedrock of education and represents enormous value for money?

Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of diverse provision for

the under-fives. If one considers the international figures, one finds that this country compares very well with our European partners. If one also includes day care, the figure for the relevant age which is covered is about nine in 10.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that almost all the increase there has been because the commitment of Labour authorities to ensure that they offer children—

Mr. Patten: Question.

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is not directly putting a question, I must ask her to do so.

Ms. Armstrong: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I suspect that the Secretary of State did not hear. I asked, will the Minister—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We all want to hear, including the Secretary of State.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that fact, and will he commit himself to ensuring that every child in the nation gets the opportunity to receive publicly funded nursery education as the very best start for his education life?

Mr. Forman: That intervention from the Labour Front Bench was a bit rich, when one recalls that under the previous Labour Government, whom I imagine the hon. Lady supported, the funding for nursery provision was cut substantially from 1976 to 1978.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for the number of schools that are operating under grant-maintained status.

Mr. Forth: There are 217 schools operating under grant-maintained status and a further 50 schools have been approved or are minded to be approved.

Mr. Greenway: North Yorkshire schools continue to achieve some of the best examination results in the country and parental approval levels of local schools are very high, but parents and governors note the experience of grant-maintained schools, which have more books, more teachers for pupils and better equipment. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when he publishes the White Paper in the autumn there will be a scheme for the grant-maintained system to attract the best as well as the worst schools?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend shows a greater understanding of the grant-maintained school system than any members of the Opposition have displayed, because, as he says, the reality is that anyone who visits grant-maintained schools cannot but be impressed by the enthusiasm and confidence of heads, governors and teachers who have discovered that to be in such control of their own futures is a liberation, and one which they welcome. That is the main justification for schools to consider grant-maintained status carefully and whether they wish to accept it. The White Paper that my right hon. Friend hopes to publish shortly will fully reflect that and all the advantages.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the question of local management of schools budgets within the last four weeks.

Mr. Forth: The Department has received a number of representations within the past four weeks concerning the local management of schools.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the real reason why the Government are so insensitive to the funding crisis m state schools that the great majority of Conservative Members send their children to private schools—public schools—and find their way around the difficulties that exist in the public sector? What do I say to governors in my constituency who are now resigning on the basis that they cannot manage with the scarce resources being allocated by the Government? What do we say in reply?

Mr. Forth: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to make such a tired and inaccurate accusation. I remind him and the House that my own children, those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the Minister of State all went to the state system. To suggest that in some way we have no understanding of the needs or the strengths of the state system is irresponsible and wrong and ill becomes the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman made the accusation that governors all over the place were resigning. Many governors have seen their first term of office come to an end and have decided to step down to make way for others. We are confident that many more people will come forward to take up the responsibility and the challenge of being school governors and to take advantage of the new powers that we have given them. I welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hall: The Prime Minister is aware that local authorities nationally have had £15 billion of assets frozen in the bank because of his Government's policy. In the light of the national housing crisis we now face, will the Prime Minister give the House a straightforward answer to my question? Why do we not allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which are much needed, with the money that they already have in the bank?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are perfectly able to use a portion of their accumulated receipts and that has been the position for many years. It is the right position for us to keep and we have no intention of changing it.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: I believe that what is good news for Basildon is good news for the rest of the country. Does the Prime Minister share my constituents' delight in Basildon at yesterday's historic European air fares agreement? Is not it the case that yesterday's agreement is a particular triumph for Britain and for Basildon, as we pressed for the liberalisation of air markets?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the triumph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the very talk of Basildon at the moment. The Community reached an historic agreement yesterday on the final phase of aviation liberalisation. I believe that that is excellent news for the travelling public and it should mean more choice, better services and lower fares. It has been a long time coming, but it is a very welcome agreement.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now serve the public interest by ensuring that the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation into the Maxwell companies' pension fraud is published without delay?

The Prime Minister: I well understand the concerns generated by the whole Maxwell case. I understand that the Securities and Investments Board intends to publish a report on IMRO's findings and conclusions. However, the House will understand that it will be essential to ensure that publication does not jeopardise either civil or criminal proceedings in the Maxwell affair, including those currently under way against Kevin and Ian Maxwell.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful for that answer. However, I must express the hope that there will not be a delay, even given the requirement to take account of the implications for possible proceedings. Does the Prime Minister accept that the report, as so far recorded in the newspapers, says that the organisation fell short of the high standards which it should have expected of itself and that, therefore, publication is a pressing necessity so that everyone can know just how the organisation fell short, what is the Government's full responsibility in the matter and how that bears on the future of the Maxwell pensioners who have been robbed?

The Prime Minister: I understand the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, as I said a moment ago, the report will be published in due course. The SIB intends to publish a report of the findings and conclusions, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice in any way either the civil or criminal proceedings—nor, I believe, would any hon. Member.

Mr. Kinnock: May I in the meantime put it to the Prime Minister that we now know that in 1987 the Bank of England blocked an attempt by Robert Maxwell to take over a bank, that in the following year, 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to a main Maxwell company and that later that year IMRO renewed that licence? Is it not clear that in those circumstances both the Government and the system that they established have a clear and serious charge of negligence to answer and that they must answer it? The main responsibility is not with the SIB to publish the


report; it must remain with the Government and they must account for their actions and omissions in the whole disgraceful episode.

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has not addressed his mind to the necessity of ensuring that nothing is done to prejudice civil or criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman well understands. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am equally anxious to ensure that the report is considered alongside the SIB's assessment.

Mrs. Chaplin: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that shows that many 14-year-olds like taking tests, in direct contradiction of the many so-called education experts? Is that not another example of how Conservative policy is good for pupils, parents and those who are employed in education?

The Prime Minister: I warmly welcome the news contained in yesterday's report about testing. It confirms that we were absolutely right to press ahead with testing in the teeth of opposition from the teaching unions and, indeed, from Opposition Members. I hope that, in the light of what has been said in the last couple of days, the Labour party will stop fighting testing, will support it and will change its policy, as it seems to have done on grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it was a profound error of judgment for the British Government to press the European Community to lift its package of economic and oil sanctions against South Africa earlier this year? At the European Council meeting in Lisbon this Friday, will he press the EC to reconsider that decision, urge it to support the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa and seek international monitoring of the violence there?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the recent violence in South Africa. I also note the commitment of the South African Government to bring to justice the people responsible for that violence. The prime responsibility for law and order rests, as it must do, with the South African Government. But they have made enormous strides towards representa-tive democracy. I understand the strength of feeling that exists at the moment, but it is of great importance that the talks do not break down and that they continue, for great progress has been made. The people who will stand to gain most from the successful conclusion of the talks are the people in South Africa who have least and about whom we should be most concerned.

Mr. John Carlisle: In the tragic and violent disorder that is now regrettably taking place in South Africa, is my right hon. Friend not absolutely right to send a message of support to President de Klerk, who has come so far in his brave and courageous attempt to find a democratic solution which is satisfactory to all parties? In those circumstances, should not the message go to Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress that empty gestures

such as suggestions of Olympic boycotts and sanctions will only hinder their chances and restrict the people of South Africa in the wonderful opportunities that they now have in front of them?

The Prime Minister: Over recent months I have had many opportunities to discuss the present situation in South Africa with both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I remain closely in touch with both of them. What is necessary at the moment is that both of them stand back from the present difficulties and then determine how it will be possible to continue the talks and reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 26 January that the Government's mortgage rescue scheme had "stopped repossessions"? Is he aware that since then, for every family mortgage rescued, 2,000 homes have been repossessed and that repossessions are now running at 140 families a day? Does he recognise that what he did then, although welcome, was too little and too late and that he now needs to do something more?

The Prime Minister: No. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were there to diminish the number of repossessions—where people are in receipt of income support, the repossession does not proceed. Repossessions are falling and that has been acknowledged, not merely by the Government but by many others. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts.

Mr. Jenkin: Following my right hon. Friend's meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week and in the spirit of subsidiarity and our right to govern our democratic processes, is the Prime Minister able to assure the House that the European elections in 1994 will be conducted under the present voting system?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly my intention.

Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Betts: Would the Prime Minister like to commiserate with the millions of English football fans who have had to endure their team's performance during the past few weeks? Would he like to reflect on Graham Taylor's commitment to deal with his European problems by playing it long? Indeed, Graham Taylor might only be happy once he has picked the whole Wimbledon team to play for England. Does the Prime Minister agree that his European problems look just as difficult and troublesome? Does he further agree that, like the tactics of the England team manager, his commitment to play his European problems long, and to avoid an early debate on them in the House, is just as likely to prove to be unsuccessful?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries me with him on either proposition. I offer the same support and encouragement to the England football team that I was happy to offer to the Scottish team after its excellent performance in the recent championships. On the European policy of the Government, I have made it clear that we shall have a further debate


before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. That remains the case, but the time is not yet right to bring the Bill back.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the British Government's part in negotiating the first-ever global ban on chemical weapons. Does he agree that one of the gravest threats to peace in the years ahead will come from the acquisition of a non-conventional weapons capability by third-world military dictatorships. many supplied by European countries? Is it not time that steps were taken to put on notice British defence contractors and others in European countries that they cannot expect Government contracts if they forge documentation, as evidence shows has been happening, to avoid the Government's embargoes on the export of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in his strictures on chemical weapons. If he has any detailed information on the second aspect of his question, I should be happy to receive it.

Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Enright: Does the Prime Minister recall that in February the Government announced a settlement of RECHAR and promised action with all expedition? It is now July—[HON. MEMBERS: "June."] It is now almost July and no ground rules have been agreed. I have sent two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and have written him one letter, but he still has not replied. Will the right hon. Gentleman sack him and get something done?

The Prime Minister: It is almost July and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is almost ready to reply.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcomed the abolition of the National Economic Development Council, or Neddy, last week for it meant an end to trade union domination and the running of the country through the union block vote?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that, in its day, Neddy did have a role to play, but that day has passed. I think that the right decision was taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will lists his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June 1992.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meale: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where I hope that he learnt a lot about the environment, will he support moves in this Parliament to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people? [interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, I will try to answer it.

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member repeats his question, we will all be able to hear it.

Mr. Meale: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where, undoubtedly, he learnt much about the environment, will he support legislation in the House to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people?

The Prime Minister: No, Madam. That is a matter of personal choice.

Unadopted Roads

Mr. Peter Hain: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedure whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; to require local authorities to act as guarantors for bank and building society loans taken out by householders and frontagers for the purposes of making up and adoption; and for connected purposes.
Many people may feel that this is not the burning issue of the day, but I assure the House that the many people who live in unadopted roads feel that they are cursed with a problem that no one wants to know about. For example, Pen-y-Banc road, in the old mining village of Seven Sisters in the Dulais valley in my constituency, has a primary school at one end, a cemetery at the other and a chapel in the middle. It is an unadopted road, that is to say, a public highway that is privately owned so that householders and frontagers rather than the local highway authority are responsible for its upkeep. As a result, it has been riddled with potholes for years and efforts by the residents to get it "made up" have been thwarted by the cost. The problem is further complicated by the fact that half of the road is owned by British Rail and, for BR, the state of it is not a priority.
Similar problems plague householders throughout Wales, and particularly in the former mining areas. According to a survey which I conducted with the help of local community councils, my constituency alone has 88 such unadopted roads, from Gwaun-cae-Gurwen and Cwmllynfell to my home village of Resolven. One study showed that there are 40,000 unadopted roads covering 4,000 miles across Britain. In Wales alone, there are about 3,000 unadopted roads. They are largely a hangover from the past when, for example, villages were built by pit owners and many of the roads were never made up.
The law governing unadopted roads is a tangled web. In certain circumstances, the local highway authority can require householders to upgrade their roads. Under section 230 of the Highways Act 1980, a notice can be served on frontagers where urgent
repairs are needed to obviate danger to traffic".
That requires the frontagers to undertake the necessary work. If that notice is ignored by householders, the authority can do the work itself and then send the bill to the residents—a gesture that is hardly calculated to boost the popularity of the local council.
Householders can club together and finance the making up of their road, which could then lead to its adoption by the authority. However, the cost is often prohibitive. Where there is not unanimity among those in the street, perhaps because some simply cannot afford it. making up can be blocked. For pensioners or families living on the dreadfully low incomes prevalent in the south Wales valleys these days, £500, or £2,000—whatever the cost of making up their road may be—is completely out of the question. So unadopted streets continue to deteriorate, rotting away as people trip over potholes. fall into puddles or are dirtied by mud.
The highway authorities have a small fund for what are called urgent street works, but areas with plenty of unadopted roads, such as Wales, make it far too costly for local highway authorities even to begin to tackle the problem. In Neath, for example, the local highway

authority, West Glamorgan county council, suffered heavy cuts in Welsh Office funding this year, as a result of which householders such as those in Pen-y-Banc, Seven Sisters, feel deeply aggrieved, especially when their road is often used by members of the public going to school, to chapel or to the cemetery. Some local residents joke sourly that such is the state of their road that one day there will be an accident on the way to the cemetery and an additional inmate will result.
Householders in unadopted roads can even be legally liable for accidents involving passers-by. Although the public have a right of way and do not contribute to the maintenance of an unadopted street, they can put in a claim if injured in an accident attributable to poor surface —a Catch 22 situation, if ever there was one, for local residents.
What can be done about the problem? In the current political environment, a nationally funded programme to make up unadopted roads is clearly out of the question. Perhaps it always will be squeezed by other priorities. One estimate of the scale of the problem puts the cost at over £2 billion. So a combination of cost and all the complexities of the legal problems means that a state of paralysis reigns.
My Bill proposes a new route. It is that we should have a nationally promoted scheme by which local authorities are permitted to act as guarantors for loans by householders taken out through financial institutions and ultimately claimable against the estate or sale of the property of the residents affected. In other words, householders would be given a choice. They would be able to take out a conventional loan and finance the entire cost of making up the street ready for adoption; or they could pay part of the cost; or they could pay nothing up front and have the cost of the loan set against the value of their homes.
For councils to act as guarantors in that way may be possible without affecting their capital allocations since they would mainly be acquiring a contingent liability. But if they needed to borrow, the Treasury should respond favourably, if only because no new public money would ultimately be involved. The important issue is to empower —indeed, positively to encourage—local highway authori-ties and borough councils to take the initiative and enter into agreements with householders, even those initially reluctant to get involved. To achieve that, it is absolutely vital that we have a national scheme. It is no good leaving it to local initiatives. That has achieved nothing over the decades as the problem has beset and trapped local residents.
With a bit of Government pump-priming, we would achieve a private sector solution. What more could the present Government want? I call on Ministers to display some imagination and to give the go-ahead to overcome the long-standing and frustrating problem of unadopted roads. I look forward to an invitation from the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss with him how to progress my Bill through its later stages in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hain, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Ian McCartney.

UNADOPTED ROADS

Mr. Peter Hain accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedure whereby householders and frontages may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority: to require local authorities to act as guarantors for bank and building society loans taken out by householders and frontagers for the purposes of making up and adoption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. A little while ago, on inquiring at the Speaker's Office, I was told that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill, which is on the Order Paper today, would not be discussed today. I welcome that decision because the Bill was flawed and was not a consolidation measure. However, it is important that the House knows whether it will be taken today. Will you confirm that? Furthermore, if it is proposed to discuss the Bill on another day and not abandon it, will it still be taken through all its stages in one day and, if so, when? Will it be discussed on the Floor of the House? It is unsatisfactory for those of us who were prepared to speak on Second Reading of the Bill later today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That matter should be raised at business questions. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During last month's Scottish Question Time, I gave notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a question about a referendum on the future government of Scotland, I intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House. I was then told by the Clerks that, because that subject was a matter for the Prime Minister, and because the Prime Minister does not answer Adjournment debates, it would not be possible for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House. Given the fact that it is in order to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland questions about a referendum for the future government of Scotland, why is it not also in order to raise that subject in a debate on the Adjournment to be answered by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults the Table Office.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I wish to clarify the position regarding the consolidation measures on the Order Paper today. It is important that any adjustments to the Order Paper should not simply be left to the Whip not to move at a given time, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Adjournment debate under item 7 is limited to an hour and a half. That in itself is disgraceful because the two reports of the Select Committee on Members' Interests run to many pages and the Select Committee spent hundreds of hours producing reports. For them to be dismissed in an hour and a half is tantamount to a cover-up by the Government.
If the consolidation Bill is not moved, is it within your jurisdiction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow us to use that time discussing item 7 so that we can spend more time on the reports of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, as they very much deserve?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is bound by its resolution of last Friday, when it agreed to discuss that matter for an hour and a half.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and I want to know where you stand on the matter. My hon. Friend found a flaw in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill. He then did his duty, as he saw fit, and sought advice from the Clerks about the flawed Bill. We have now found that the Bill has been taken off.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Was that his mistake?

Mr. Skinner: It sounds very much like it. Who is working with whom? My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock should have been allowed to oppose the Bill today. It has given the Government time to try to sort out the problem. Wheels have been working within wheels here. When my hon. Friend and I seek the Clerks' advice, we want to know whether that advice is being given in confidence so that we can get on with the job of opposing the lousy, rotton Tory Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that when hon. Members speak to the Clerks, they speak in confidence, which is what happened on this occasion.

Mr. David Trimble: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the House is bound by the timetable motion on the debate on Members' interests passed last Friday, but is there any way to prevent timetable motions from appearing on the Order Paper on Fridays, when not many hon. Members are present? It is particularly unfortunate when there is a minimum of consultation and other hon. Members are not given the opportunity to express their opinions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It takes only one hon. Member to object.

Mr. Mackinlay: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Leader of the House be brought here to tell us why the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill is not being proceeded with today? It is legitimate to ask why it has been abandoned and whether there has been some misunderstanding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, and no doubt the Minister has taken note.

Orders of the Day — Boundary Commissions Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 June]

[MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

Clause 3

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN REPORTS

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 31, leave out from 'which' to the end of the line and insert

'at the time of publication are prospective only.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, a boundary shall be regarded as prospective at any time if, at that time, it is specified in a provision of an Act, Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly, statutory instrument or statutory rule but the boundary has not yet come into operation.".'.

No. 12, in line 40, after 'applies', insert '(a)'.

No. 13, in line 44, at end add

`and

(b) a boundary which has not yet come into operation on a particular date and which, apart from this subsection, would not be regarded as prospective on that date shall be so regarded if it is specified in a Bill which, on or before that date, has been read a second time by the House of Commons'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 44, at end add—
'(4) For the purposes of subsection (7) of section 3 of the 1986 Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) to the report of the Boundary Commission in respect of London constituencies and which is a report to which subsection (2) of section 2 above applies, the Commission may delay submitting its report to the Secretary of State until it is notified as to the boundaries of London boroughs to be in operation until 12th June 2000.'.
This is a probing amendment, designed to consider the problems of local government structure and the absence of any clear sign from the Government about what they want to do in London. The local government structure in London, as in other districts, has a major effect on parliamentary boundaries and the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England.
There is a lack of clarity in the Government's approach towards the government of London. It is driven partly by the fact that, ever since the Government's abolition of the Greater London council, they have had no clear idea about what should be done in London. Since then, there has been confusion and difficulty in ascertaining what should be done in London.
There are two specific problems. The first difficulty results from the size of some London boroughs and, particularly, the fact that the electorate, as opposed to the population, in some London boroughs appears to be much smaller than one would expect. Under rule 4 in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the boundary commission is told that
no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other London borough".
London boroughs are ring-fenced in a way that no other local authorities are anywhere else in the country.
Clearly, it was thought at the time—there seems to be some logic in this—that if the borough was meant o be the major service provider, there was something to be said for relating that boundary with a parliamentary constituency so that one Member of Parliament or group of Members of Parliament would represent constituencies within a London borough. However, that creates a twofold problem: first, the size of the borough may be such that the constituency is much smaller than one would expect of an English constituency; and, secondly, especially in London boroughs, where there is likely to be a review of the structure of local government, the work of the boundary commission will be made much more difficult as it will not know what the Government have in mind or what Parliament will enact between now and 1994, when recommendations for London will be complete.
It is perhaps not surprising that none of the Members who were making such a fuss on Second Reading about Scottish constituencies and their size is here today—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose—

Mr. Darling: Perhaps one is. If the hon. Gentleman will just hold his horses for a moment I will gladly allow him to intervene later.
Comparisons between some of the London boroughs and Scotland are interesting. The constituency of Surbiton has 42,800 electors. That compares well with Glasgow, Garscadden, which has 42,000. Kingston upon Thames, the Chancellor's constituency, has only 51,500 electors, and Fulham has 52,400. It will be seen that London's constituencies are, by and large, with some exceptions, on the small side, bearing in mind the English quota of 69,000 to which the boundary commission will be working.
If Members who think that Scotland is over-represented look at London they will see that there are some anomalies. I would argue that anomalies in parliamentary boundaries are quite proper because it is right that the boundary commission should take into consideration community ties and the desirability of linking constituencies or boroughs in one parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Can my hon. Friend solve a problem for me? In the London boroughs of Camden and Westminster, what community of interest can explain dividing one side of a road from the other?

Mr. Darling: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England No. 627, published in May of this year, but it makes many interesting points—such as the fact that it is not clear why some boundaries run down the middle of streets. Some London boroughs certainly have a specific identity. Boundaries must be drawn somewhere. The report asks where London ought to stop. We who travel in and out of it often wonder where it starts and stops, but for the purposes of drawing up a satisfactory scheme for the government of London the Government will have to decide where London starts and stops. As I say, some boroughs have an identifiable existence and their residents identify with them. There are cases, however, in which it seems a matter of pure accident why the boundary commission of the day chose to make some people residents of one borough and others residents of another.

Mr. John Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in communities of interest in London, can he explain why his party was so keen to stop Streatham rejoining the London borough of Wandsworth, with which it felt a community of interest? The move had the support of the local Conservative party but was rigorously opposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Darling: That makes my point. There are parts of London where there is no unanimous voice saying which borough they ought to belong to. Presumably the hon. Gentleman and his party saw some advantage in removing Streatham from the borough it was in; others might have taken a different view.
It does not really matter whether one community or street is in one borough or another. What matters for the purposes of the boundary commission is that it should know what the position is likely to be for the next eight to 10 years. The Boundary Commission for England will have to determine and make recommendations on the parliamentary constituencies in London by 1994 and to comply with rule 4 it must take into consideration the existing London boroughs. If they are about to change to any significant degree, the commission should know that before it determines constituencies that are likely to exist for eight to 12 years, through three Parliaments.
I am willing to concede in advance that the drafting of our amendment may not be perfect in every respect, but the Government should still tell us what they have in mind for London. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment has in mind a review process for the rest of England that will take some time. The parliamentary answers that we have been given about London are not exactly illuminating.
It would seem that the commission is bound to ponder on whether it can justify recommending that Surbiton, with an electorate of 42,800, should remain a constituency when the electorate of the Isle of Wight exceeds 100,000. It is perhaps inevitable, however, that there will be some disparities. If the Government were to make changes, or if Surbiton were to change in character, it would be useful for the commission, if not for the hon. Member who now represents the constituency, to know the position sooner rather than later.
It is fairly easy to ascertain the size of electorates in London boroughs but it is not altogether clear what the electorates should be. The figures show dramatic changes. There are considerable movements within electorates and I do not know where all the people are going. I accept that in London people move about as they do in other areas, but when we consider the pattern of movements between 1987 and 1992 the changes are startling. During that period the electorate within Camden, as opposed to the population, decreased by 11,000. In Hackney, it decreased by 25,000 and in Lambeth by 11,000. It seems odd that so many people should move. If we take London as a whole, more people have apparently left their boroughs than those who have arrived to live within them.
I would expect to see corresponding increases in population in other parts of England, but they are not apparent. That suggests that not everyone who is entitled to be on the register is on it. I accept that there will be some movement. For example, some people might have opted for Lord Tebbit's bike to seek employment elsewhere. It


seems that yet another reason for delaying examination in London is that the individual registers appear to be inaccurate.
The various changes between 1991 and 1992 were also fairly dramatic. Hackney's electorate decreased by 20,000 while Croydon's increased by 5,000.
We are concerned because the Government seem not to know why these movements are taking place. I listened to the Home Secretary yesterday and he seemed not to care. He said that the answer might be that people are not keen to be on the register. He talked also about people having religious objections to being on it. I cannot believe that 20,000 people in Hackney have suddenly found a religious reason to disappear. The Government, both in the interests of good government and of arranging boundaries that fit the needs of London's population, should be concerned that there appears to be far greater movement than one would expect and that there is no apparent reason for it. There will undoubtedly be movement, as I have said, but it appears that there are more deep-seated reasons for it than normal demographic change.

Mr. Bowis: I understand that the reason for the reduced electorate in Hackney is a change in practice by the registration officer. He ceased to register automatically people who had not completed the registration form.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is raising an important issue in the wrong debate. He is saying that the commission should have the ability to make major borough changes, but it makes it clear in its report that it does not have that discretion. It would be ludicrous, therefore, to wait for the commission to continue to deliberate. The hon. Gentleman should seek on another occasion to give the local government boundary commission new terms of reference. If he took that course, he might ultimately get what he wants.

Mr. Darling: We are talking about the parliamentary commission, which bases its recommendations substantially on London boroughs. It is bound to do so because of the rules. If the structure of London boroughs is not clear or is uncertain, or if the basis on which the recommendations of the local government boundary commission that bear on populations are wrong, it follows that the parliamentary commission's findings will be based on a misconception of the true situation. Surely that should concern us all, especially as so many constituencies are, of necessity, represented by London Members.
Many have said that it is high time that the Government accepted the fact that there clearly is a problem. It is obvious that some boroughs are not good at registering their population while others have made a determined effort to go through the registers to see whether people exist. But clearly, if one looks at the figures for all the London boroughs, there are tremendous discrepancies. It may have been more appropriate to raise the matter yesterday— I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday—but that is another argument for saying that we have an interest in ensuring that we know how many people live in each borough and how many people are eligible to vote in each borough before we start drawing up parliamentary constituencies.

4 pm

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that recommendations on the drawing up of parliamentary constituencies, certainly in areas where it is obvious that there is a substantial under-registration, would be based on the wrong data? Why should there be any confidence in such recommendations when it is known that the commissioners have said that a certain electorate is living in a constituency which we know is an underestimate of the true figure?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Before the review it was rightly complained that parliamentary constituencies are based on electorates that were thought to he accurate in 1976. It is odd that we should now draw up boundaries on the basis of electorates that we know, or have substantial reason to believe, are wrong in 1991. If they are wrong this year, the chances are that, by definition, they will be slightly changed by 1994. If the boundary commission's recommendations are accepted in 1994, it will be the beginning of the next century before we look at the matter again when the position may be very different.
The argument for ensuring that we know the population of a borough is compelling, not just for the sake of representation but for the purpose of calculating what boroughs ought to receive in terms of revenue support.
Another substantial reason for the parliamentary boundary commission delaying its work is the structure of local government in London. As I have said, the Government moved quickly once they were determined that the Greater London council was to be abolished. The GLC certainly had its faults. No one would deny that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Name one.

Mr. Darling: I was hoping to complete this passage of my speech before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber. However, I am extremely glad to see him for a number of reasons.
The Government were quick to abolish the GLC, but they have been slow to tell us what they want to put in its place. The Government seem to have been more concerned with trying to create a political structure of their own political colour than with providing a structure of government that will efficiently deliver services to the people of London.
London is the only capital city in the world that does not have a strategic planning authority. It is not surprising that people who are not supporters of the Labour party, people who are objective inasmuch as they are not beholden to any political party, have drawn attention to London's problems when its policy is being determined by a number of boroughs without any strategic planning.
I well remember that in 1980 or 1981 the Government pledged to get rid of quangos, which they said had bedevilled the Government. Yet in London, following the abolition of the GLC, quangos are alive and well and flourishing.
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England, in its report to which I have referred, has drawn attention to some of the problems that it faces. Clearly it can continue its work and make recommendations on the basis of the present London boroughs and the present boundaries, but if the Government are to change the


structure of local government, or if the borough boundaries are to be amalgamated, extended or whatever, the parliamentary boundary commission should take that into account. If it is thought important to link London boroughs and constituencies—clearly it must have been at least as recently as 1986—it follows that the boundary commission should have regard to the boundaries that are likely to be in existence for the next few years.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not want the boundary commission in Wales to take account of intended changes there that are much further down the track—as opposed to changes which might occur in London, but which are not intended because we have no plans to make them. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are inconsistent with those that he made about Wales yesterday.

Mr. Darling: There is no inconsistency. Our objection to the situation in Wales is that the Government propose that the boundary commission should have regard to changes debated in the House on Second Reacting but which have not received any further consideration. While in general the Bill proposes that the commission should have regard to changes that exist in the form of an Act of Parliament or some other measure, in the case of Wales it is proposed that such changes need only have reached Second Reading stage. It is quite within the contemplation of right hon. and hon. Members that there could be unanimity in all parts of the House that certain changes should not proceed.
We do not object to the commission having regard to changes which have occurred or which are imminent. Our concern is that the commission might proceed in the knowledge that changes might occur when they are at such an early stage, or are so uncertain, that no commission could possibly have regard to them.
The Government have not made clear their position in respect of London. If the Minister is saying that the Government plan to do absolutely nothing, that is an argument for the boundary commission to proceed in the way that the Government want. As I understand it, there may well be changes. The Minister shakes his head. Is the Minister saying that the present situation in Surbiton, for example, is satisfactory and should continue? It is a parliamentary constituency with an electorate of only 42,000, surrounded by much larger constituencies.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: This Minister will say, for the purposes of this intervention, that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the rule in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, which says that London borough boundaries should not in the normal way be crossed by the boundary commission when recommending boundaries, with the reform of local government structure in London. The two are not the same. All the hon. Gentleman's arguments have been directed at the former, but his amendment is about changes to London local government structure.

Mr. Darling: The two are interrelated. I draw the Minister's attention to two written answers. The first, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), represents the Government's position in the terms that the Minister expressed it:

There are no plans to change the general structure of local government in London."—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 59.]
The second was given by the same Minister:
We have no plans for radical change to the pattern of local government in London."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 383.]
That implies some change. If there are to be changes to the pattern and therefore to boundaries—in the sense that if local government is asked to effect changes, the units thought appropriate to deliver those changes might alter —it would be appropriate for the boundary commission to know about them.
The purpose of this debate is to draw the Government on what they plan to do. The boundary commission's report to which I referred earlier stated:
There needs to be a clearer view of the role and functions of local government, both generally and in London, before the existing units can be evaluated and more fundamental decisions made on their boundaries.
That suggests that we ought to know whether or not the Government plan any changes. The Minister appears to indicate that there are to be no changes whatever. I find that surprising, because I believe that changes are expected, and they are bound to have a knock-on effect on boundaries.
This is not just a London point. If the rules in the 1986 Act are to provide for the ring-fencing of London boroughs, the boundary commission must know whether there are to be changes in the boundaries; otherwise, it will proceed on a basis that will not apply in four or five years' time.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The possible ring-fencing of London borough boundaries is relevant to schedule 2(5) of the 1986 Act. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if we take a straight reading of the entitlement of London boroughs—using the information given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)—it is clear that the disparity between the population of the largest constituency, which is about 100,000, and that of the smallest, which is 54,000 or 56,000, outweighs almost any other aspect of the legislation?

Mr. Darling: I do not have that information before me, but the smallest London constituency has a population of 42,000. I am not sure from where the hon. Gentleman gets his 56,000 figure.

Mr. Bottomley: Hammersmith and Fulham is entitled to 1.44 Members of Parliament, and has a voting list of 100,000. Westminster has an entitlement of 1.58—in other words, it is entitled to two Members of Parliament—and an electorate of 109,000 plus the City of London's 4,000. Thus, unless borough boundaries are crossed, each Westminster constituency has an electorate of about 56,000, while Hammersmith and Fulham has an electorate of 100,000. The information can be found in column 7 of written answers in yesterday's Hansard.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that London boroughs should be crossed or that they should not. I believe that he is saying that they should. Certainly, if the position does not change, it is difficult to see how the boundary commission can ignore rule 5 in the schedule to the Act, which relates to excessive disparity, and rule 6, which entitles the commission to cross London boroughs. It did not cross them to any material extent at


the time of the last review. If, however, there are changes in any London boroughs, especially the smaller ones but also the larger ones—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is right; the commission must examine the boroughs to assess entitlement to parliamentary con-stituencies—entitlements may change as well, even if the alterations are not dramatic. The question of registration is also important. If, for instance, Hackney's 20,000 missing voters are actually present, there is bound to be an effect on its entitlement. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has helped my argument, although I can see from his face that that was not his intention.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On Second Reading, those who criticised the over-representation of urban Scotland pointed out that London was also over-represented, and that it was therefore logical to cross London borough boundaries. The boundary commission has already set a precedent by grouping metropolitan districts to get around the excessive disparities. Surely it is reasonable for it to group two or more London boroughs to avoid such a problem in the capital.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that all Conservative Members took that view, but I know that the hon. Gentleman does, and I do not quarrel with him. It may well be appropriate to cross boroughs in some circumstances.
Amendment No. 8 is designed to draw the Government on their intentions relating to boroughs. The rules come into play only when the boundary commission is faced with a set of boundaries. If there are to be changes, the commission should be aware of them before starting its work. If the rules are to be obtempered, and if the rationale behind the London borough rule in particular has any weight in terms of community and other links, the boundary commission should know where the boundaries are likely to be when it draws up the parliamentary constituencies.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is not it perfectly clear that the local government boundary commission can make minor tidying proposals, and has done—for example, for the borders between Bromley and Kent and between Croydon and Surrey—but the parliamentary boundary commission can have regard only to what has already happened? Since there are no proposals for major overhaul of the London boroughs, the parliamentary boundary commission must work on the basis of the existing London boroughs, irrespective of whether it crosses borough boundaries.

Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that it was a probing amendment. If the Government say that there will be no change whatsoever, fair enough; the issues will have been canvassed and we can all go home happy that we have done an afternoon's work. But if changes are to be made —even small changes can be substantial—it would be appropriate for the boundary commission to know before it makes its recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is not the Bill a political hot potato for the Government, because nothing creates greater anger and confusion among electors than people in, for instance, Richmond being claimed by the London borough of Kingston and people in Esher, which is in the district of Elmbridge, also being claimed by the London borough of Kingston? The Conservative party loses votes under such arrangements, as we saw with the London Government Act 1963. Conservative Members are very anxious about the possibility of the same happening now. Hon. Members who are anxious to defend the integrity of the county of Essex are concerned to ensure that the Government fully and frankly disclose their intentions. Many people in the counties surrounding Greater London are deeply concerned about the proposal for local government and parliamentary boundaries. They wish to be in the parliamentary boundary that is coterminous or has a relationship with their district council and local government unit. Above all, most people want to stay in the counties—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Mr. Darling: It is clear that in the next eight or 12 years the Government will have to turn their attention to what constitutes London and whether the present boroughs are satisfactory. Suggestions will always be made about whether a boundary should be down one street or another. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West said that changes are contemplated all the time. When the Government say that they are not planning anything, it usually means that they are planning something but do not want to say. [Hon. Members: "No."] Our experience over the past 12 years tells us that that is true.
The amendment is a probing amendment designed to draw from the Government their intentions for the local government structure. It is important that the boundary commission knows what the Government plan, otherwise the basis on which it proceeds will be false and the boundaries that it suggests in 1994 may not be appropriate at that time, let alone eight or 12 years thereafter.
I hope that, in reply, the Minister will tell us the Government's intentions. If, as the interventions and grunts from Conservative Members suggest, no changes are to be made, which I find hard to believe, I am sure that the people of London and of its surrounding areas would like to know about it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that the local government boundary commission seems to consider constituency boundaries simply on a street-by-street basis, but that has not been my experience. In the past two years, major changes to the boundary between the London boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon have been suggested. We saw fit to contest those changes strongly and succeeded in having them withdrawn. From the local government point of view, the proposed changes are merely a tidying process, perhaps to move a boundary to a railway line where the railway line is close to the existing boundary. That seems to make good sense, and it is such small, tidying changes which are needed rather than major structural changes.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central rightly said that the smallest London constituency comprises 42,500 people, but not many London constituencies are anywhere near as small as that. In any case, it does not compare with the smallest Scottish constituency of 23,000. As he is making comparisons between Scotland and London, I draw his attention to that fact.

Mr. Bermingham: I understand the argument about Scotland, but it is a different matter and, like Wales, involves a different commission. However, can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that Northampton—I choose that town deliberately, as it has two Conservative seats —has approximately 70,000 or 75,000 electors in each seat, whereas the London borough which was mentioned a moment ago has only 42,000? Is there something special about London, or is it part of England?

Mr. Greenway: It is interesting that Labour Members of Parliament argue as they do. I do not remember them arguing against the substantial number of London Members of Parliament when most of them were Labour. Now that 47 of the 84 Greater London Members of Parliament are Conservatives—

Mr. Bermingham: We need fewer of them.

Mr. Greenway: I hope not, but I was merely saying what crossed my mind when the hon. Gentleman invited me to comment on what he said.
I have heard nothing in today's debate or anywhere else about one of London's particular problems: we are obliged—I am not complaining—to give homes to substantial numbers of asylum seekers. In the past year, in the London borough of Ealing, about 220 housing units, some sizeable, were handed to asylum seekers. I may even be understating the case substantially, but the fact is that a fair number of asylum seekers have been put into leased accommodation, which means that local people who should be on the electoral register are not because they are not living in the units of accommodation which have been passed to the asylum seekers.
As I was saying only this morning to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a Member of Parliament is obliged—and, naturally, keen—to provide a service to asylum seekers. I dare say that, like me, many of my hon. Friends find that asylum seekers are keen to use the services of their Member of Parliament. They come to my surgery—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. What has this to do with the amendment?

Mr. Greenway: I am dealing with the numbers game which was a central part of the argument of the lion. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who asked: why had people gone from the register? I am explaining that many of them have disappeared from the register because, at least in my constituency and in Ealing as a whole, many of the housing units have been taken over by asylum seekers who are not registered—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a considerable issue.
Another matter about which I expected the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to be knowledgeable—he probably is—is the fact that, between 1986 and 1996, 1 million fewer people will reach the age of 18. As those over 18 go on to the electoral register, that fall in the population

will be reflected there. London has taken a substantial share of that population rail and that has substantially affected the numbers in our constituencies.
I hope that we shall respect the London borough boundaries and not cross them unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. It is well known that all London boroughs individually seek to create their own identities and that they succeed in doing that. Ealing regards itself as —and is—the queen of the suburbs and is proud of it. People who live in Ealing have their own ethos, just as there is a different ethos across the border in Brent—one only has to go across the border to discover that. If we start crossing borders in redrawing constituency boun-daries, we shall introduce a substantial change which will mean that not everyone in London will he well represented.
All London boroughs, like other local authorities, have distinct services, such as the education and youth services. The services in one borough are very different from the services in others. For those and other reasons, I hope that constituency boundaries will continue to be drawn within boroughs, as they have been in the past.

Mr. Bermingham: As always, I declare an interest in the subject as a practising lawyer who has been involved in a number of inquiries.
I accept unreservedly that there will he no local government changes in London this side of the year 2000. I see no need for change because the boroughs, as has been said, have their own entities. That view may surprise Conservative Members.
I am concerned about the sense of justice in the country as a whole. I hope that the Home Secretary will find it in his heart this afternoon to be gracious for once and to give way to a fair point. I hope that he will give an undertaking when, no doubt, I persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to withdraw the amendment in return. The undertaking which I seek relates to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 which deals with the London boroughs. The Home Secretary will recall that the paragraph deals with the question of crossing what I call the "skin" boundaries—the county boundaries.
We know that developments are taking place whereby certain counties are being redefined. I Lake no issue with that because it is fair and reasonable. Monstrosities such as Avon and Humberside. which were set up in 1984, are silly. Let us have a little hit of sanity. Why, for example, can we not go back to Lancashire? It will happen. Our skin boundary, for the sake of argument, would he Lancashire and within it would be a number of metropolitan district councils. In the redistribution between 1976 and 1983, one of the factors that led to the case of Foot and others v. the boundary commissioners was that the law at the time led to differences between the way in which the counties were considered, the way in which the metropolitan districts were considered and the way in which London was considered.
For my own purposes and for the record, I say that if we could have a system of every constituency having the same numbers, all well and good. No one could argue with that. However, I am a realist and I recognise that because a council is built in a series of wards—in some areas there are big wards and in others there are small wards—that is not always practicable. One must be realistic and realise that there will be an area of imbalance between


constituencies. Provided that that does not exceed 5 per cent. either way, that is tolerable. It becomes intolerable when the imbalance is more than 5 per cent.
4.30 pm
For the purposes of my argument, I am leaving out Scotland and Wales because they have different commissions and the 1986 Act deals mainly with the English commission. One accepts that the Welsh and Scots will go their own way—I do not mean to be unkind.
In 1983, when we came to consider the matter in some depth, we found an interesting feature. We found that in the interests of achieving parity of number, for example in Tyne and Wear, it was necessary for the boundary to cross the Tyne bridge. I know that yesterday my mathematics were appalling, for which I apologise to the Committee. However, I corrected the figures for Hansard's purposes. I said that seven and a half plus three and a half equalled 12. That will undoubtedly bring a smile to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who is an expert in the subject. I got it wrong and I apologise for that.
The point was that by crossing, say, the Leeds-Wakefield boundary, the commission was able to create seats of similar size. Boundaries were crossed in the west midlands, in Dudley; in Greater Manchester, in Rochdale; and in the borough next to Oldham. That was logical because it made it possible to create seats of the same size.
When the skin boundaries come to be drawn for the counties or the new shire counties—leaving aside the future nature of local authorities and whether they will be unitary or otherwise—I hope that the commission will use common sense and try to keep towns in those areas as single units. Of course, that will mean crossing local government borders so that, within the county, seats of comparable size are created, perhaps consisting of part of the metropolitan district and part of the adjacent former county council area. But at least it will be possible to create seats of approximately the same size.
The problem arises with paragraph 4(1) (a) (ii) of the schedule to the 1986 Act. The 1986 Act says bluntly that in London one cannot cross boundaries except for reasons of excessive disparity. How can one cross the border of Surbiton and—if someone will think of the name of a large seat in north London, I shall be grateful because I cannot think of one off the top of my head—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Brent.

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman has a suggestion, I shall give way.

Mr. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) jokes from my side, there are not any large seats in London. The House understands the hon. Gentleman's point. He does the House a service in an additional sense. This is not a party political issue. Whether London is allocated Members of Parliament on the basis of its whole electorate or by adding up bits and pieces from column 7 of Hansard, the number comes to 70 or 71 Members. So London loses 13 seats, whatever happens. The question is, what sort of fairness and disparity will there be? Everyone is listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I take his words kindly. He understand the point that

I seek to make. The first question is, what is London? Is it the total of all the London boroughs which are known as the London boroughs of—? Once that point is reached, we have the total electorate. When we have the total electorate, we can determine the total entitlement. If the matter is dealt with in that way, we shall avoid the problems of 1983. In 1983, in some London boroughs, a factor of 4.3 or 4.4 meant four seats and, therefore, small seats. In other boroughs, 1.3 meant two seats and, in others, 5.2 or 5.3 meant five seats.
In the rest of England the commission made a fair rule so that, for example, in Northamptonshire—I cannot think of the exact figures; I merely use Northamptonshire as an example—a quota of 8.4 resulted in eight seats, whereas in Leicestershire a quota of 9.5 resulted in 10 seats. In other words, the commission rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. In London it did not do that. It took 0.35 or 0.4 as the cut-off point, thus causing London to become over-represented. That is the root cause of the problem.
Hon. Members have asked whether we shall be able to keep the number of seats down to 651. There is a simple solution. If London is properly represented, with seats that reach the norm for England, the House will not grow. I concede that in some areas in the south the number of electors warrants an increased number of Members of Parliament to represent them. That is fair, as some seats are over-sized.
I cannot foresee a solution to the Isle of Wight problem, as it is illogical to tack part of Hampshire on to it. We shall have to wait for the island to become more popular. I think that it will happen and 'ere long it will reach a population that entitles it to two seats. I hope that the Minister will then decide to take an interim step to create two seats on the island, rather than waiting for another parliamentary boundary review.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say that he understands the argument with regard to London and that, because of the increasing disparity likely to occur between London seats and those in the rest of the country, the time has come to cross London borough boundaries. We are merely asking for London to be treated in the same way as any county. Once that is accepted, the argument is over. This is not a party political matter, as it will be for the commission to decide which boundaries to cross and not for us to decide or even to suggest, and I do not do so today.
If London boundaries are to be considered as a single skin and are to be crossed, it will require a simple amendment to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of the schedule. I suggest that the following wording should be added,
save as is where necessary to achieve parity with the rest of England
I am trying to be as succinct as possible and I hope that I have been as fair and non-partisan as I can be. I leave the matter squarely in the Home Secretary's paws. If he wants fairness in the commission and in the Bill, he must treat London the same as the rest of the country.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reject the amendment, because it is important for London constituencies to be considered in conjunction with the rest


of the parliamentary seats in England, Wales and Scotland before the end of 1994. It would be unparalleled and unfortunate if they were not.
As a London Member, I have great interest in these matters, as do many of my Conservative colleagues. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South said that London constituencies are over-sized and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) pointed out —and received an answer—that London is over-represented in Parliament. That is inescapable. However, the means to overcome that problem must not depend on waiting for some supposed change in local government boundaries or local government reorganisation, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) suggested.
As far as I am aware, Sir John Banham's commission is merely considering the possibility of changes to the structures of counties and districts. It is possible that some unitary authorities will be created. In any event, I understand that that does not necessarily apply to London boroughs, since they are unitary authorities and have been for some years. I did not read anything in the Conservative party manifesto during the run-up to the last election to suggest that there will be any other change in local government boundaries or local government in London.
If we are to acquire the right amount of parliamentary representation equitably, within present Greater London boundaries, without over-reaching the county boundaries —apart from any marginal changes that may be suggested by the local government boundary commission—it seems right that the boundary commission might decide to cross boundaries; or the commission might decide to link two slender boroughs, which do not warrant two Members of Parliament each, to create three constituencies.
Let us consider the smallest constituencies. I do not know which ones will be chosen, but from the written answer in column 7 in Hansard of 22 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) I see that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has an electorate of 84,700. That seems to be close to the number necessary for one parliamentary seat. If it is linked with one of the boroughs close by—I know not which—it may be possible to find a rationale for those two small boroughs to have three seats rather than four. It is along those lines that I urge the Minister to consider whether the boundary commission should or should not transgress borough boundaries in order to make common sense and rationality out of what many people see as the unsatisfactory position in London.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I will regret the passing of some of the seats in London. Traditionally, some helped to give the Conservative party, rather than the Labour party, a majority in London. However, having considered the position in London, I accept that it is manifestly unfair that some constituencies are made up of many electors while others are not.
I also seek some reassurance from my colleagues on the Front Bench that they are not considering any reorganisation that will create a superstructure for the government of London. I warn them, straightaway, that I should be opposed root and branch to that.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: In some ways, I feel that we have been here before—both yesterday and on Second Reading. I wish to respond to some of the issues which have been raised today.
The consensus between the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and those Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate was heartening. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. Happily, the Isle of Wight, which is the great exception to the rule, is acceptable as a constituency to those who live there. They did not respond to the provisional recommendation that the Isle of Wight should have two constituencies. Therefore, they seem to be content to be under-represented at the moment, no doubt in the sure and certain knowledge that the Isle of Wight will have two constituencies in due course.
I take issue with a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He seemed to suggest that a road that had one borough on one side and another borough on the other would inevitably create anomalies, but that one could somehow do something about that. It is inevitable that there will always be areas in which the border between urban authorities is a road and not something more significant, such as a river, railway line or canal. If that were not so, we would have enormous local authorities. For example, the local authority for London would cover not only Greater London, but large parts of the surrounding non-metropolitan counties. The city of Glasgow would have to include all its suburbs, too, because it is a continuous built-up mass.

Mr. Darling: I can save the hon. Gentleman some time. That was not my argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who pointed out that some of the boundaries are odd and that there is no rhyme or reason for them. However, there is no way around the problem. According to the boundaries proposed by the last boundary commission review, my constituency is circumscribed because the residents parking scheme for Edinburgh stretches into one part of it, but not into another. That may be an anomaly, but I do not know what can be done about it. I accept that that is so.

Mr. Jones: We have common ground on yet another point, which is excellent.
The problem in London has become more acute in recent years because of the stair-stepping effect. When the number of seats in a London borough was reduced from five to four or from four to three, the problem was less difficult to overcome. In an extreme case, in which a London borough was theoretically entitled to 4.5 seats but actually had four, the average constituency size would be only 12 per cent. above the national average. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from four to three, the maximum discrepancy in constituency size would be 17 per cent. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from three to two seats, the discrepancy would be 25 per cent. If the reduction were from two seats to one, it would be 50 per cent. It is because of the stair-stepping effect that the proposed constituencies for London must cross borough boundaries.
4.45 pm
The precedent has been set in the metropolitan districts and it works perfectly well. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is no longer present, argued that it would be desirable if parliamentary boundaries and local authorities were contiguous units. That is simply not possible. In the non-metropolitan counties, it is quite common for Members to represent parts of more than one district authority. For example, in


my neighbouring constituency, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) represents part of the Three Rivers district council, the whole of the borough of Watford and part of the city of St. Albans. Such boundaries are set to ensure that there is the right number of electors in each non-metropolitan district.
Until now, the only anomaly has been London. The logic of the figures, which show that the electorate in London has declined over a long period, means that, for reasons of fairness, that nettle has to be grasped by the boundary commission. Otherwise, we will have an increasing number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and the areas outside London, whose population is growing, will be treated unfairly.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I support the amendment.

Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate so how does he know?

Mr. Livingstone: I can read the amendment, but I doubt if the arguments of Conservative Members would have swayed me very much, given the appalling and, I think, corrupt approach of the boundary commission to London over the years.
I have never had the slightest doubt that the boundary commission shows a small and significant bias in favour of the Conservative party. That is manifest because, whenever a boundary review is completed, one always finds such a bias. We saw that in 1950 and 1951 when it was much easier to elect Conservative Members of Parliament than Labour Members of Parliament. In 1951, the Labour Government were defeated, although they had won more votes than the Conservative party, because the boundaries had been drawn in a subtle way to benefit the Conservatives.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Simon Burns: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I shall not give way until I have made my argument.
The same thing has happened with each significant boundary review. After each of them, there has been a small bias in favour of the Conservative party.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I shall give way once I have completed my argument. I advise hon. Members not to object to my argument until they have heard it.
After the votes are counted at each election, psephologists have demonstrated that were the Labour and Conservative parties to receive an equal number of votes, the Conservatives would usually enjoy an advantage of 10 to 20 in the number of seats won. That advantage tends to be eroded during the lifetime of the boundaries as population change takes place, but every parliamentary boundary review has had an in-built bias towards the Tory party.
I had the misfortune to attend one of the reviews in London during the last round. It was for the constituency of Hampstead and Highgate and was an absolute travesty, showing great prejudice. The constituency had been bitterly fought over, and it once returned a Labour Member of Parliament. We saw in that boundary review a complete ignoring of natural communities in order to

preserve a seat for the Conservative party. In the long term, it did not work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) demonstrates that fact. In Camden, before the review came into operation in 1983, we had three constituencies which, it was proposed, should become two. The choice before the boundary commission concerned what part of the old St. Pancras, North seat should be included in Hampstead.
There were two proposals, one from the local Conservative party, arguing that Highgate should be included. That proposal overlooked the fact that no road joined the Highgate ward in St. Pancras, North with the Camden constituency. Unless one trekked over the heath —quite a trek—one had to go out of the Highgate ward, through Haringey and back into Camden to find a road that would convey one from one side of the constituency to the other. It was absolute nonsense.
The alternative, put forward by the Labour party, was that the two wards of Gospel Oak and Grafton, which abutted the South End ward—it was one natural community but was divided for years—should be included. That would have made a clear and concise boundary created by a railway line. There could have been no doubt on the part of anyone listening to the hearing on that boundary review that the obvious and sensible natural community would be achieved by the creation of a Hampstead seat which included Gospel Oak and Grafton. Highgate was included for no reason other than the fact that Gospel Oak and Grafton were safe Labour wards, whereas Highgate ward normally returned a Conservative.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I read the report on that occasion. The boundary commission made it clear that it thought that there was merit in bringing together the two sides of Hampstead heath, which would have meant the least disruption to existing constituencies, that always being one of the commission's principles. There seems to be a clear communality of interest between those who look to the heath from one side and those who look from the other. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the commission acted out of political motivation is a travesty of justice and, even with his standards, he should know better than to suggest that.

Mr. Livingstone: To define a constituency by being on opposite sides of an open space, one of the largest open spaces in London, seems to be a wonderfully new concept. That does not apply anywhere else in London. But it made all the difference to a seat that Labour would have been more likely to win.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman sauntered in half way through the debate and then made outrageous allegations about the boundary commission. I fear that, because he was so late coming in, he missed the tabloid press reporters in the Press Gallery.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that, following a boundary commission review, there will be at the next general election an inbuilt bias of 10 to 20 seats in favour of the Conservative party. Does he have any positive proof to back up his allegation? How does he reconcile it with the fact that, prior to the February 1974 election, the press having made that allegation, as press cuttings—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's intervention is becoming very long. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Livingstone: February 1974 was not the natural next election. Those boundaries should have come into operation at the 1970 general election, but we remember why the then Labour Government decided to put off the alterations, by which time the natural bias of which I spoke had started to erode. If those boundaries had operated in the 1970 election—[interruption] I refer Conservative Members to the analysis made by The Economist and published as a separate booklet in late July 1970. That made it clear that that inbuilt bias was there at that stage.
There would have been a Conservative Government in February 1974 but for the split with the Ulster Unionists. That allowed Labour to win more seats because in every previous election the 11 Ulster Unionist seats would have been counted with the Conservative seats.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a major problem has been the fact that, in every redistribution since 1951, there has been a growing disparity in the average size of London seats compared with seats in the country as a whole? That has given a flavour of there being a Conservative bias. The bias has appeared to benefit the Conservative party simply because London has too many seats. Further, the hon. Gentleman must remember—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member and the Committee to the fact that we are discussing London boroughs in the year 2000, not what the situation is now or in the past.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthousc. How on earth can we discuss the future without referring to the present and the past? The future is built on the present and the past.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I urge hon. Members to have a good try.

Mr. Livingstone: My worry is that the boundary commission is planning to take the same corrupt approach to boundaries in London—[Interruption.]—in the coming redistribution—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the boundary commissioners are corrupt?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the hon. Member concerned to decide.

Mr. Bottomley: It is disgraceful.

Mr. Livingstone: Not at all. I have a lot more evidence about the corruption of the boundary commission, and it is what one would expect. I am not saying that it is blatant. Corruption in Britain is usually rather subtle. I am referring to a small bias, with a decision here or there, carefully moved the Conservative party's way, and I have drawn attention to what happened in Hampstead—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member return to the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Livingstone: I return to the specific point of London and the borough boundaries. We have seen already the approach of the boundary commission. In 1993, London should have lost four more seats than it actually lost, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made, for too many seats have been given to London. Some people in

London greeted that as a sign of generosity on the part of the boundary commission. When one examines which four boroughs were the beneficiaries of the extra four seats, one discovers that they maintained four Conservative seats in London.

Mr. Bowis: Including Newham.

Mr. Livingstone: No, not Newham. The four boroughs that were allowed to keep an extra seat—which, if the formula had been applied accurately, they would not—were Bromley, Barnet, Bexley and Greenwich, with the result that in each borough the Conservatives retained a seat that they would otherwise have lost. If that is not biased, I do not know what is, and it has started again. A local government boundary review is being carried out in London and it is expected that the changes to be made will provide the basis for the parliamentary boundary commission's findings—the point made in the amendment.

Mr. John Gorst: As the hon. Gentleman's objective is to win seats, may I put it to him that he would be more effective if, instead of traducing the boundary commission, he seduced the electorate? That has been his great failing so far.

Mr. Livingstone: I have no intention of seducing anybody in the Chamber. A series of boundary reviews of the boroughs is occurring, and the parliamentary boundary commission faces a problem. If it reduces the London seats to exactly the number that the area should have in relation to its population, the majority of seats lost would be Conservative seats. Many Tory boroughs which, unjustifiably, held on to their seats at the last redistribution—[Interruption.] The majority of seats to be lost in London will be Conservative seats.
The parliamentary boundary commission has started to change borough boundaries to try to reduce that impact. Brent is a borough from which, with the best will in the world, my party would have trouble dislodging the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Equally, it would not be easy for the Conservative party to win either of the other two Labour seats in Brent. Although the boundary commission's attitude is to reduce Brent to two seats, the population figures do not justify that. Unless the boundary of the borough is changed, Brent will continue to have three parliamentary seats: two Labour and one Conservative. So the parliamentary boundary commission has approached—informally, of course—the local govern-ment boundary commission and asked it to reduce the population of Brent sufficiently so that it will lose a parliamentary seat. That is what I call corruption.
I received an anonymous telephone call from a worker inside the local government boundary commission tipping me off about the fact that the commission had been asked to reduce the size of Brent to two parliamentary seats. When that redistribution takes place, the Brent, North seat would remain Conservative and Labour would lose one of the other two seats. Thus, the bias of the boundary commission is revealed once again.
5 pm
The boundary commission set about its task by suddenly publishing a proposal to remove the safest Labour ward from my constituency and move it to Westminster, North. That act was not received enthusiastically by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), as the ward concerned has about


5 per cent. Conservative voters. There was a huge public outcry. Tenants did not want to be moved around at the whim of the local government and parliamentary boundary commissions and the commissions were forced to back down. However, they did not do so all the way but allowed the bulk of the estate to remain in Brent, shaving off bits of Brent all around—a small part from Brent, North; more from Brent, South; and some more from Brent, East. It is a wonder to behold because they have taken just enough to bring us below the point where we qualify for three seats. That is corruption.
A remarkable coincidence is that, in a borough where nobody has been arguing to change the borough boundary, the commission has changed virtually the entire borough boundary to try to reduce the population to the magic figure where we no longer qualify for three seats. It is down to within about 150 votes of it.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting over his persecution complex, but little else. If what he says were true, why on earth would he want to support an amendment that delays changing the parliamentary boundaries until the local government boundary commission has brought in its new proposals?

Mr. Livingstone: I am telling the House what has happened and what I have seen with my own eyes when those normally Conservative barristers conduct the reviews. Sadly, that is part of the problem. I realise that not every barrister is a Conservative—some of my best friends are barristers—but on any law of averages, if we rely on lawyers to conduct matters, we shall rely on people with no sympathy for the Labour party. The attack on Brent is bad. I oppose it not just on the ground that it will damage the Labour and Tory parties but because it is bad to sit down and ask, "How do we draw up the boundaries in London to benefit the Conservative party?", which is clearly what has been happening for years. We should ask how best we can benefit the people of London.
If we reduce Brent to two very large seats, we shall create seats with enormous numbers of problems to be represented by just two Members of Parliament. Each year, I handle some 4,000 constituency problems and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) does exactly the same. If we fuse the bulk of those two seats together, we shall create a seat which it is almost impossible for one Member to serve, unless the House of Commons gives those Labour Members who represent hard-pressed inner-city areas extra parliamentary support and research facilities.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point because I raised precisely the same one yesterday on a previous amendment. If the boundary commissioners can take into account the geography of constituencies in rural areas and decide not to apply the quota, why cannot there be similar criteria for urban seats, such as those which my hon. Friend and I represent? As I said yesterday, with 42,000 constituents in my borough, I have two or three times the weight of problems of Tory Members in rural areas with 90,000 constituents. No acknowledgement is made of that in this place. Perhaps the boundary commissioner should be allowed to recognise it.

Mr. Livingstone: Clearly, boundary commissioners cannot advise Parliament about the services and support provided to Members, but they should take account of the

fact that, when they carve up boundaries, they create an intolerable concentration of problems in a small number of seats that are far too large. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we are in a position to make special exemptions for seats that cover large areas with a distant and spread population, why cannot we do the same in areas of London with massive concentrations of social problems? It shows that the boundary commission does not give a damn about the service provided to constituents caused by concentrating problems in a small number of parliamentary seats.
I hope that the amendment will be successful because I have not the slightest doubt that, were we not under the pressure of a parliamentary boundary review, the local government boundary commission would not have started fiddling with virtually every yard of the boundary of the borough of Brent, moving people backwards and forwards to remove one seat from Brent.
Another option was suggested. Westminster council, which is not normally a fan of mine—I do not normally agree with those people and consider them little better than grave robbers—came up with a proposal for the boundary commission to move a part of Westminster, North into my constituency. That was just waved aside because it would have made it impossible to get rid of one of the seats in Brent.
Let us not continue to pretend that this is an academic exercise. It is about a biased parliamentary boundary commission. Its bias is not overwhelming but is just enough to make the difference in a tight election. It is using that bias against the people of Brent and intervening for political reasons, ignoring natural communities and the vast burden of problems that exist in those areas. As a result, it is giving them far too few Members of Parliament. I was tipped off about that by someone working for the local government boundary commission, who said that a request had been received from the parliamentary boundary commission to reduce the size of Brent. That has been done to within 150 votes. The four additional Tory seats that were retained in London last time were not justified on the basis of population. They were given not to the areas with the greatest number of social problems but to areas on the periphery with nothing like that scale of problem.
Given the blatant fiddle which I have witnessed to prevent Hampstead becoming a much more winnable seat for Labour and creating an artificial constituency on two sides of Hampstead heath, and now the perverse fiddle of the boundaries of Brent, the time has come to do away with the parliamentary boundary commission. It would be much more honest if the House debated the matter, recognising that we are discussing the pursuit of power by a party that makes certain that the people conducting those reviews are largely its friends. They are people whom Conservative Members have met and with whom they have practised law decade after decade, and they are doing the business for the Tory party.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I have no intention of supporting the amendment because it simply tries to put off decisions further. Nor do I propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be playing a rent-a-quote tendency by maligning the boundary commissioners.
I wish to raise a subject that I raised on Second Reading with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home


Secretary. It must be considered on the basis of the totality of London and the outer London boundary. The issue was raised by the local government commissioners in their overview which was produced in the middle of May. I forget the number of the document. but I am sure that the Ministers will know it.
The local government commissioners stressed the point that the Greater London boundary is now out of date and has been overtaken by the development of communities around the outskirts of London. The borough of Kingston, which I represent, is one such example. Kingston has spread from the township of Kingston, over the Greater London boundary into Surrey, and now the community of Kingston, with Long Ditton, Thames Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Claygate—all four form part of the borough of Elmbridge—are cohesive parts of the community that surrounds Kingston.
In the light of that development, three years ago the officers of Kingston council presented the local government boundary commission with facts and statistics to show the way in which development had taken place and the boundary had been overtaken. The local government boundary commissioners have accepted the points raised. In their overview they stated that, although they believed that they were not empowered to make considerable changes in their recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the points raised should be considered in the near future.
When will the boundary commission take into consideration the development which has created a community that now spreads over what we knew as the Greater London boundary before the Greater London council was abolished? There is no question but that that has also happened in other districts around the periphery of London, and it must surely be taken into account, or there will be confusion. As I have a constituency which touches on that district, I should be told what sort of steer can be given to the boundary commission. Should it consider those matters now, or should we continue in confusion for a number of years? I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will state that the parliamentary boundary commission will look seriously at the views expressed in the recent report of the local government boundary commission.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Any hon. Member who represents a London constituency—I am fortunate enough to have represented two London constituencies —will be well aware of the anomalies and problems and the need for a thorough review of the London boundaries. The facts are clear. We are conscious of the extent to which the majority of London constituencies fall below the numerical quota. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) rightly said, the caseload of most London Members is substantially greater than that of hon. Members for other parts of the country, which compensates for the smaller populations.
We are conscious that the boundaries in London are often a historic feature, inherited over a long period, and do not always follow a logical pattern—they are there because they are there. When I first reviewed the constituency boundary and considered the western edge of Greenwich and its boundary with Lewisham, East and Deptford, I found it difficult to understand the logic. I was

advised by someone who was in a better position than Ito know the facts that the boundary was decided in the 1860s. I hesitate to use the word "gerrymandered" as the seat was then represented by William Ewart Gladstone, who I am sure would have regarded that as improper. However, I am assured that the boundary was adjusted in the interests of the Liberals at that time. It is a curious boundary, and there is no question about the need for a review and an adjustment. The boundary commission has been taking that entirely proper approach to the western boundary of the Greenwich parliamentary constituency and the Greenwich boroughs.
I and other London Members are concerned at the risk inherent in the ad hoc approach taken to the redefinition of London boundaries. That is evidenced in the way in which the possibility of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is not being debated from first principles. Discussion is not centring on what is right in terms of the relationship between the parliamentary constituency and the borough boundary—there is a strong argument for making a link between the two and preventing parliamentary constituencies from crossing borough boundaries.
The case is clear, but it is not being argued on its merits. It is being considered purely in terms of how to cope with boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham where the populations are falling drastically. Ad hoc decisions are being taken to try to avoid either creating a single constituency which represents about 100,000 people or, at the other extreme, maintaining two constituencies of only about 50,000 people. The issue of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is being considered, not from first principles, but on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to cobble together the best solution out of the current unsatisfactory framework.
Having looked at the report of the local government boundary commission I feel more worried about our proceeding within a tight timetable in which decisions will be prompted by the need for quick decisions rather than by the need to take a broad, strategic view of the appropriate boundaries for London as a whole, and the relationship between those borough boundaries and constituency boundaries. Let us consider how we would approach the problem if we were starting from first principles.
As the local government boundary commission stressed in its report, one would consider the boundaries of outer London and the limits of the metropolitan district. One would start—as it did—by identifying the existing problems. The present boundaries were defined long before the definition of current usages and other development patterns were clear. The report states:
Many of the boundaries pre-date the establishment of London in its present form, and were not amended to follow modern features when the Greater London Council was created. More recent years have seen the construction of the M25 and associated development on the edge of London.
Those developments were not taken into account when the boundaries were drawn up.
It is hardly surprising that the report, published just a month ago, should end with a clear steer. It recognises that more radical action is needed than the commission has been able to recommend because of its limited remit. That is true not just in south-east London, about which I am concerned, but, as the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) highlighted, the same applies in south-west London. Those boundaries, and the definition of London


boroughs and their surrounding districts, needs a more strategic review than was possible given the remit of the local government boundary commission.
Having considered the total exterior London boundary, I shall consider the boundaries of individual boroughs, where similar considerations apply. The report of the boundary commission makes it clear that there are wide variations and anomalies in the size of boroughs, which range from 118,000 to 258,000 residents in inner London and from 136,000 to 318,000 in outer London.
The report makes the following important point:
There seems to be no clear rationale for the present number and size of the existing boroughs. The present arrangements for London government seem to be a compromise between two types of authority—on the one hand the boroughs are not truly strategic, while on the other hand they seem too large to represent local community loyalties given that there has been no provision for parishes in Greater London.
Many of us working in inner-London areas know the strong sense of attachment that people still feel to their local communities and the sense of loss deriving from the fact that the local government boundaries introduced in the 1960s no longer allowed them the same sense of proximity and contact with their local authority. I frequently encounter people who feel that since the larger London borough of Greenwich was brought into existence, embracing Woolwich and Eltham, those in the former metropolitan area of Greenwich find the town hall now located in Woolwich more remote and do not enjoy the same degree of contact with it.
The boundary commission clearly hints that, despite its remit, it would have liked to deal with the issue more broadly and strategically and to consider the right local authority size, role and functions. Those difficult issues are not being properly considered, but they should be.
I am interested in the factors which relate to the boundaries of the borough of Greenwich. An important recommendation in the provisional boundary commission report suggests that the community of Thamesmead should be united with the borough, on the principle that communities should not generally be divided across boundaries. The recommendation makes a great deal of sense, but for a variety of reasons there was some local opposition to it. I suspect that there is a great deal of conservatism among electorates and a reluctance to move from one borough to another which can easily be stirred up by people who do not want boundaries to be rationalised. I hope that the logic of the recommendation will be reinforced when the boundary commission report finally appears. The whole of Thamesmead should be brought inside the borough boundary—a sensible arrangement.

Mr. David Evennett: As the Member whose borough covers Thamesmead, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the voice of the people? Conservative Members believe in what the people want, not in what looks good on a map or in what the bureaucrats may think is a good idea—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, West (Mr. Banks) is always vocal on these issues, but we are not discussing his part of London.
The people of Thamesmead made their voice clear in a referendum: they do not want to be part of Greenwich. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in listening to them.

Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary, listening to the people is an important exercise, but one should not be misled into thinking that a view held at one time is final or decisive. Electorates change their minds; temporary factors may influence their decisions. That is why these issues should be dealt with in broad strategic terms, not in an ad hoc way. The poll tax, for instance, may at a given moment influence people to express a preference in a certain direction, but far more fundamental issues are at stake.
If the recommendation is confirmed and Thamesmead is united with Greenwich, that will influence the size of the borough and hence the number of constituencies. Other factors not relevant to the amendment also come into play —the extent to which the register is accurate, for example. There is a great deal of evidence that it is not. Future development proposals are germane to my constituency as well. The proposals for the development of the Greenwich peninsula are stalled because of the hiatus over the Jubilee line—a hiatus for which Conservative Members have a considerable responsibility. The key point is the need to avoid a rushed decision leading to ad hoc conclusions and unsatisfactory short-term answers. There should be a much broader long-term review of boundaries.
All the factors that I have mentioned suggest the case for a more rational and strategic approach than is likely to be adopted if the process is rushed. The amendment would allow the boundary commission to act on wider considerations, to take a broader view and to bear in mind long-term aspects. There is thus a great deal of merit in it. I ask the Committee to support it.

Mr. Tony Banks: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, amendment No. 8 is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Government their intentions in respect of London. I have heard hon. Members mutter from sedentary positions that there is no intention to change borough boundaries or the local government structure of London, but that view is not universally held in the Conservative party or in the Government—nor will it hold for the foreseeable future.
During the general election campaign, Ministers made a number of statements about the future local government structure of London. The then chairman of the Conservative party, Governor Chris Patten as we must now call him, said that there would be something in the Conservative manifesto on the subject. He hinted as much in an interview carried by the Evening Standard.
Then there was a proposal by the President of the Board of Trade—I believe he wants to be called El Cid to the effect that he was in favour of directly elected mayors for London. There have been proposals to set up a new London forum made up of appointed business men —I stress the word "men". Lady Shirley Porter has suggested a Minister for London and a look at the question of London's boroughs. Clearly, a great deal is going on in the Conservative party.
The state of flux in London is brought about by the uncertainty arising from the abolition of the Greater London council. It is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central should move


an amendment suggesting that the boundary commis-sioners take that state of flux into account. We want to get it right this time.
Conservative Members say that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I have an axe to grind about the GLC, and we certainly have—we were both on it when it was abolished. But I believe in the old political dictum, "Don't get mad, get even," and that is what we intend to do—eventually. Unfortunately, we shall have to wait another four years before doing so.
The Confederation of British Industry, the London chamber of commerce, the London advisory planning committee arid anyone else who takes a logical, disinterested and dispassionate look at London and the way it is governed—I exclude the political hacks on the Conservative Benches—

Mr. Wilshire: Come off it.

Mr. Banks: We all know why the GLC was abolished: it was because that mad fool, that loony half-mad cretin, the former Prime Minister—I trust that I am not being unparliamentary in thus describing her —decided to abolish it. That was no way to deal with London.
Tomorrow morning I shall be on my way to Vilnius in Lithuania because I have been asked by the Council of Europe to look into whether that country is a fit and proper country to join the democratic family of nations in the Council of Europe. One of the problems put to me concerned the Lithuanian Government's disbanding of the Polish and Russian councils in the country. Apparently that is a threat to democarcy. It is easy for us to say that something should not have been done, but we have a Government—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's remarks are interesting, but he should relate them more closely to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I was about to do so when you intervened, Mr. Lofthouse. I was not setting out my itinerary merely for the sake of it. I was about to contend that what has happened in London with the abolition of the GLC is no worse and no better than what the Lithuanian Government have done. Indeed, that Government had excuses for what they did. After all, their country has only recently emerged from 50 years of Soviet domination. I see much similarity between the totalitarianism and the Stalinism that existed in the Soviet Union and that which was perpetrated on the United Kingdom by Mrs. Thatcher, or Lady Barking, as I understand she is to be called, when she takes up her new position in the other place.
Uncertainty has been created in London by the abolition of the GLC, and that is not surprising. You might have guessed, Mr. Lofthouse, that I am biased.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Never.

Mr. Banks: I admit to a certain tinge of bias when it comes to the GLC. Certain views have been expressed, however, by various bodies and if I am biased so are they. For example, in report No. 627 the boundary commission expressed several concerns about the structure of local government when setting out its conclusions. The commission stated:

The pattern of administration covering any one part of the capital is now so complicated, with many joint arrangements and functions taken on by both local government and non-local government bodies, that it is difficult to see how accountability could be improved without a fundamental reappraisal of the role of the borough in London's government.
Has the Minister paid any attention to that which is stated in the commission's report? Are the Government taking no account of the views that the commission expresses? If the Government are not listening to the views of electoral commissioners, are they similarly not listening to what is said by the local government boundary commission? These are things that we need to know. The commissioners need to know because they do not want to waste their time producing reports that the Government trash.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents an even smaller electorate than mine—so if I go, so does he. Many would say that the House of Commons would be well rid of us both. The hon. Gentleman said that there is confusion about what is London and what is the Greater London area, and that is precisely what the commission has said. There is uncertainty.
We should not be considering these issues in a piecemeal, party-political, partisan way. The way in which Mrs. Thatcher scrapped the GLC was undemocratic. I take as an example the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I know is a big man in terms of his heart and his conscience. If he were strictly honest with us, as he is from time to time, he would admit that Mrs. Thatcher's approach was not the way to deal with London's local government structure.
It was possible to present a case—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East did so—for the abolition of the GLC. I disagreed violently with my hon. Friend at the time and the issue remains a bone of contention between us. Similarly, arguments could be advanced now for changing borough boundaries and the strategic government of London, but they should be presented only after calculated consideration by the parties following the findings of a Royal Commission, for example. Instead, Mrs. Thatcher wrote on the back of an envelope, "Scrap the GLC." She did so because she happened not to like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, myself, other members of the GLC and what the GLC was doing. That is not the way treat local government structures.
If Conservative Members were truly democratic—I doubt whether there is any more than a thin veneer of democracy within the Conservative party—I believe that they would agree with me, but Conservative Members will go along with democracy so long as it serves their interests. As soon as it appears to go against those interests, democracy goes out of the window.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene to show the Committee my big heart and to say how much we shall miss him when his constituency disappears. Does he understand, however, that the measure that we are discussing has nothing to do with the reform of London's local government but everything to do with boundary proposals? We can return another day to consider boundary changes in London. Of course, I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for trying to do my job, but I am capable of doing it myself.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Lofthouse. I am capable of looking after myself, but I welcome what you say. I am speaking to the amendment, which seeks to make it clear that the commission may delay submitting its report to the Secretary of State until it is notified of the boundaries in London which are to be in operation until 12 June of the year 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, it is a probing amendment. I have probed the hon. Member for Battersea—metaphorically, not literally, as he well knows—and he has been found wanting.
We are talking about London boundaries, and I do not really mind if borough boundaries are crossed. I accept that that might be necessary. I do not like the idea, but many of my hon. Friends say that if borough boundaries are crossed outside London there is no reason why they cannot be crossed inside the capital. I would not like it to happen in the context of trying to fix parliamentary constituencies. In other words, I would wish there to be more discussion. The crossing of boundaries causes confusion and I would not want to represent a community which straddled a borough boundary. The crossing of boundaries takes away the community element that we like to have in the relationship between Members and their constituents.

Mr. Barry Porter: I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It might be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) —I apologise for stemming his torrent of words—that the commissioners are "corrupt". If he agrees with that assertion, can it be backed with some evidence?

Mr. Banks: I did not make the assertion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is capable of looking after himself and substantiating his allegations. I know that he felt strongly about the matter and believed what he said to be true. If an hon. Member feels something to be true, he has the privilege of being able to speak his mind without fear or favour.
It is not necessary to believe in fifth-form conspiracy theories when we consider the role of the commissioners, but I believe that they very much share the Government's outlook. I would think that they are all part of the club. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East has said, conspiracy and corruption within our society is subtle. We do not have the open corruption that is to be found in other countries. Those who are involved here are far more subtle than that. The British ruling class has had so many generations of manipulating our society that it does not have to do it in an open and obvious way. Instead, it uses subtlety. Members of that class share the same value system. They went to the same schools, they are in the same chambers, and they are members of the same lodges. They go to the same clubs.

Mr. Livingstone: They go to bed with one another.

Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend says, they go to bed with one another.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I thought that the chairman of the boundary commission was the Speaker of the day of this honourable

House. Surely it is not possible to accuse the commission of being corrupt in any way without making the same accusation against its chairman. It is about time Labour Members stopped slurring past Speakers and the present Speaker.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) has been treating the Committee to one of his humorous performances. If that has resulted in any stain on Madam Speaker, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw.

Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I referred mainly to the barristers who conduct the inquiry. I cast no aspersion on Madam Speaker.

Mr. Banks: I, too, was referring to the barristers, Mr. Lofthouse. Let us get that clear.

Mr. Porter: Further to the points of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If it is clear that Members of the House of Commons have gone insane, is there a method by which they can be stopped from speaking?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to decide that.

Mr. Banks: I can assist the hon. Gentleman. We were talking about Madam Speaker, and under the mental health legislation the Speaker has the right to section any Member. Conservative Members should contemplate that carefully before making any further speeches.
Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) before he disappeared out of the Chamber after being unable to obtain any reaction to his last denunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. No doubt he went to the Library to discover the role of Madam Speaker. But her position on the boundary commission is purely nominal; it is not a working position.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough and I hope that he will now address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: Of course—I was just trying to give a rudimentary lesson in constitutional theory to the hon. Member for Eltham.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is there not some truth in the suggestion of semi-secret proposals? Does my hon. Friend recall that, not long ago in this very Chamber, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the President of the Board of Trade, asked why we needed London boroughs? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in London are not aware that under section 14(3)(d) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was supposed not to apply to London, the commission can recommend
the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs"?
I am sure that most London borough councillors are not aware of that. Certainly some Members of Parliament are not. That reinforces the case for some form of delay as set out in the amendment unless and until that matter has been addressed and concluded.

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is all part of the uncertainty argument that I put earlier. When Nicholas Ridley was Secretary of State for the


Environment, he made it clear that he felt that boroughs should simply have an annual meeting with councillors getting together—in his words—over a good lunch, in order to decide which particular contracts were to be allocated to which particular—

Mr. Jim Dowd: Friends.

Mr. Banks: That was the unwritten part of what he was saying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) emphasises the uncertainty that exists in London. As the parliamentary boundary commissioners are paying some heed to boundaries for the local government boroughs, it is obvious that they need to know in some detail what Government thinking is. I hope that eventually the Minister will give us an honest and open account of the current thinking within the Department of the Environment and the Home Office on the future structure of local government in London.
I am not talking about now. The Minister can no doubt say that at the moment the Government have no plans to make any changes. I want to know what long-term thinking—assuming that that is not too much to expect from Cabinet deliberations—there is on local government structures. I cannot believe that nothing is happening. There have been too many representations from too many bodies to which the Conservative party pays heed to the effect that something needs to be done about London if it is to play its part as one of the major European capital cities and to retain its position as the financial centre of Europe, and that it must have some sort of direction, coherence and identity. The Corporation of the City of London is saying that, as are the commercial and business interests within the square mile.
It is not only Labour Members who need to know; it is not only the boundary commissioners looking at parliamentary constituencies who need to know; it is also the local government boundary commission. Everyone wants to know. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to tell us.
Clarification of the Government's plan is particularly important as the local government boundary commission under Sir John Banham, which is due to take over from the present commission, has been given explicit power to make radical changes to the pattern of London boroughs. Section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992 allows the new commission to recommend the following changes:

"(d) the constitution of a new London borough by the amalgamation of two or more London boroughs or by the aggregation of parts of London boroughs or by the separation of part of a London borough;
(e) the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs."

That is explosive stuff—not my speech I hasten to add, but what I have just read out is explosive stuff. When the people of London get to know that there is the possibility of boroughs and boundaries disappearing and amalgamations taking place, they will want to know what part they are to play in those deliberations. The Minister owes it to the House to say what sort of democratic processes will be brought into play so that communities can discuss with which part of London or community they want to maintain links, or whether they want to go somewhere else.
5.45 pm
What we have long missed in London is a proper discussion about London's local government. We do not want decisions made by Ministers on the run, as it were, or by Prime Ministers who take a particular dislike to figures or bodies, or by Conservatives who cannot now retreat from the face of Thatcherism because to do so would be like spitting on the previous Prime Minister's grave. They have done much stamping and spitting on her grave up to now, but I do not think that they want to go any further.
The people of London deserve something better than their local government structure being left to decisions made on the back of an envelope in the Cabinet from time to time, with various statements being made ex cathedra by Ministers and those who are now governor of Hong Kong or who have gone on to different positions in the Cabinet. London deserves to know. At least the amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to start the great debate on London that we want. I hope that he will show himself ready and able to meet the challenge. Go on!

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I was so diverted by the rehearsal of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his visit to Vilnius that I did not notice that no other hon. Member had risen.
I shall start with the hon. Gentleman because he finished on a rousing note. I shall not tell him the "Lloyd" plan for the future of London, but in a few moments I shall come to the Government's plans for the future of London.
The hon. Gentleman read from the Local Government Act 1992 the powers that the Local Government Commission will have to recommend the amalgamation and division of London boroughs. It certainly does have that power to recommend, just as I believe the local government boundary commission which it supersedes had.
But local government boundary commissions make their reports at intervals of 10 to 15 years, so the next report of the Local Government Commission after the one that is currently under way will probably not come forward until well into the next century.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) put most of his questions in a form that related to whether the Government had a secret agenda to change the structure of London's local government in the foreseeable future. Most of his complaints, however, seemed to relate to the rule in schedule 2 of the 1986 Act which precludes the crossing of borough boundaries by the parliamentary commission except in exceptional circumstances.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no such agenda. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment rather than for me, but in summary I can say that the Government have no plans to review the general structure of local government in London. They have no desire whatever to inflict another layer of bureaucracy on London which would create, not solve, problems. They have set up a special Cabinet sub-committee. That relates to some of the references made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to plans for the future and various suggestions. The sub-committee is chaired by the Secretary of State for the Environment and has been set up to co-ordinate Government policy in London.
It intends to establish a private sector London forum to promote London as a world centre of business, tourism, and culture. None of those changes and developments affects London local government structure or boundaries.

Mr. Tony Banks: What opportunities will Londoners and their representatives, such as local councils and the London Boroughs Association, have to discuss the future shape of the London forum? That is an important development, and many of us would like to be involved in the forum's creation and in selecting its members.

Mr. Lloyd: That question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am sure that he will take on board all good ideas—even those submitted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. However, that has nothing to do with London local government structure or boundaries, which is the subject matter of the Bill and of amendment No. 8 in particular.

Mr. Darling: Is it not ironic that the Cabinet has established a special committee, but that matters affecting many other parts of the country will be considered by local councils? That is typical of the Government's approach to London and of their fear of its electorate. If there is to be no change, why did the 1986 Act allow the local government boundary commission to examine the constitution of new London boroughs and amalgamations, and so on?
If the Government do not intend to do anything about London, why as recently as earlier this year did they seek to amend the 1986 Act, which specifically enjoins the commission to consider such aspects—and presumably it would have the contemplation that Sir John Banham might recommend changes?

Mr. Lloyd: He might do so, but those powers to recommend exist in previous legislation. As I told the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, another local government boundary commission review is not due this decade. Commissions make their reviews at intervals. We are in the middle of a review now. A review under the terms of the new legislation—not dissimilar to the 1986 Act—is not expected until into the next century.
London boroughs and their boundaries are not due to be considered in the foreseeable future. In the normal scheme of things, that will be done 10 or 15 years after the current commission has reported.

Mr. Bermingham: I am well aware of the local government review proposals and of the action that Sir John Banham intends to take. Is it already in mind to change the shape of London boroughs at some future time? If so, that surely adds weight to the suggestion that I made to the Home Secretary earlier today with regard to the 1986 Act—that the parliamentary boundary commissioners should be allowed to cross London borough boundaries to ensure parity with the rest of England.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman concentrated on that point for most of his speech, and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I appreciate the force of the argument. It is open to the boundary commission to cross London borough boundaries if, in the

commission's judgment, an unreasonable and unaccept-able disparity in the size of a constituency's population would otherwise exist. In the same way that the commission can cross London boundaries, it can cross other base line boundaries in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is for the commission to decide whether the disparities have become so great that it must cross boroughs. It is for the commission, not the Government, to interpret its responsibilities under the schedule in question.
I and the Government would be loath to alter the boundary commission's rules at this stage. I hold out no hope that I would think it practicable and right to do so. I shall, however, discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department the points made in the debate. I emphasise that at this stage I do not consider that change would be practicable. Nevertheless, we will turn our minds to the comments that have been made and to the possibilities before Report stage and Third Reading.

Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister appreciate that at the heart of the 1983 case was the ruling by the appellate committee in the House of Lords that it could not interfere with a statutory base? The position has worsened—as the Minister knows from the experiences that other Conservative Members recounted this afternoon. If the review is to be just and not to he seen as partisan, the rules for London ought to be the same as for the rest of the country.

Mr. Lloyd: In the rest of the country, there are always boundaries over which the commission may not trespass other than in exceptional circumstances. There are different boundaries for different reasons in different parts of the country. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the position has deteriorated in respect of London. It may be more difficult to devise constituencies of roughly equal size or of acceptably similar size—in which case, it will be for the boundary commission to reach its own conclusions under the rules in the 1986 Act, on which it is entirely for the commission to reach its own judgment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend's earlier remarks will have provided some comfort to hon. Members in all parts of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) spoke of a skin or envelope around one or possibly two constituencies. That is very different from the situation in most English counties, whose boundaries contain at least four constituencies—except in the Isle of Wight. The figure can be as many as 14, but the lower limit is what matters. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to return at a later stage to say whether he believes that the proposition made in the amendment that was not called today, that "excessive disparity" can mean 10,000 extra votes, and should certainly apply in the case of 20,000 votes, is one that the boundary commissioners might be expected to share. If the commissioners do not consider a disparity of 20,000 votes excessive, we ought to change the primary legislation.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the difficulties confronting the commission when he refers to the envelopes in other parts of the country that contain a varying number of constituencies. In other parts of the


country, that number is very small compared with the huge number in the whole of Greater London. If we abandon the instruction contained in schedule 2 to the 1986 legislation, we shall create enormous difficulties for the commission. I am not sure that the suggestion—and as this was made in an amendment that was not called, I shall not dwell on it—that the boundary commission should be given some instruction as to an excessive disparity would answer the case.
Even if such an amendment were made, the Bill would still contain the requirement that the commission is obliged to give precedence to the borough boundary—even though the numbers were unequal. Substantial problems would still exist. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion represents an effective remedy.
Having considered that point, I believe that it would be extremely difficult to introduce an acceptable change. I understand the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House—albeit not unanimously, because the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) argued the other way. However, there is sufficient force of argument for me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to want to reconsider the issues. Nevertheless, I would be misleading the House if I were to lead hon. Members to believe that I envisaged a solution. I want to consider the arguments again.

Mr. Bermingham: The problem is not so great. In the shire counties, 10, 12 or 14 seats can bring us closer to the norm. I believe—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will correct me if I am wrong—that merely allowing one seat to cross the boundary between certain south London boroughs would remove all the disparity, allowing us to reach the required norm of 69,000 very quickly. The boundary commission knows where those boroughs are. The difficulty has been dealt with elsewhere in the country, and it can be dealt with very simply in London.

6 pm

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's proposed solution would tend to leave matters as they are. If it is so simple to achieve a rough uniformity in that part of London, it can reasonably be left to the boundary commission to regard the opportunity as an exceptional one of which it would be right to take advantage. However, what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said about the grouping of boroughs in parts of London underlined the complexity of what he proposes. There are 84 constituencies in Greater London, and I suspect that, if the boundary commission is to manage them effectively, they will have to be grouped. We are well down the track with the boundary commission review, and I do not think that it would be right or practicable to change the rules at this stage, given the complicated adjustments that that would require.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer in his place—

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has gone to check the Hansard report. Apparently, he said something that has caused concern.

Mr. Lloyd: In that case, I shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow. According to the rules, the meaning of what an hon. Member has said must appear in the record, even if the grammar has been tidied up.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, East cast such fantastical aspersions on the objectivity and non-partisanship of the boundary commissions, but I shall not dwell on the matter, except to say that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to carry either side of the House with him, and to add that, at the last general election, it took some 71,000 voters to elect a Conservative Member and some 61,000 to elect a Labour Member. If the boundary commission was indeed biased in favour of the Conservative party, it did an extremely poor job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked whether we would examine the boundaries of Greater London and the county of Surrey. I must disappoint my hon. Friend, and tell him that we do not intend to do so in the foreseeable future—probably not during this century. That issue is tied up with the whole question of the distribution of seats in London.
We have said very little about amendment No. 8 itself. The amendment would enable the parliamentary boundary commission for England to delay its report for London until it knows what the London borough boundaries will be on 12 June 2000. I hoped that an Opposition Member would explain the significance of that date. Perhaps it is a printer's error for 1 June; if not, however, its significance escapes me—and it seems to have escaped the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central as well.
I note that the amendment uses the words "may delay". Presumably the commission would be able to produce its report without knowing the boundaries if it felt that that was the right course. As we established yesterday, however, the 1986 Act requires the commission to produce reports that relate to all the parts of the United Kingdom for which they are responsible. That would prevent the English commission from presenting a report that left out London. The Bill, on the other hand, requires the commissions to produce their reports by the end of 1994.
The amendment manages to contradict parts of the 1986 Act as well as the central feature of the Bill. If accepted, it would produce internal contradictions in the legislation. I realise that it is a probing amendment, but I believe that Opposition Members intend to divide the House, so I shall explain why I do not think it should go on to the statute book. There is a good practical reason —albeit a technical one—for my view.
As I have said, I can give some comfort to Opposition Members. The local government boundary commission for England will produce its recommendations for the London and metropolitan boroughs in the autumn; there will thus be adequate time for the House to approve them by statutory instrument, so that they are effective by 1 April 1994. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wisely refrained from moving amendment No. 6, there will also be adequate time for the boundary commission for England to take the revised London borough boundaries fully into account; indeed, it will be obliged to do so before submitting its final report.
Although the amendment is not acceptable, what it ostensibly seeks to achieve will almost certainly happen, because the London boroughs will not be due for another boundary review for 10 to 15 years. That will take us well into the next century, far beyond the magic and unexplained date of 12 June 2000.

Mr. Dowd: I support the amendment. I have not been reassured by anything that the Minister has said, principally because for many years the Tory stewardship of London's affairs has served Londoners very badly, especially inner Londoners.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) produced their traditional sterling defence of the Greater London council. Some of us, however, regarded its creation with little more than equanimity. It was created by a Conservative party that had given up hope of ever securing a majority on the even earlier and much more lamented London county council. I did not take a very active part in the debate that took place across London at the time, because I was at the council's tender mercies in one of its schools. The fact remains, however, that the traditions of the LCC and its successor are now denied to the people of London.
The amendment holds that it is not a good idea to allow for a wholesale review of the governance of London that does not include at its heart a review of the provision for that governance. The date of 12 June seems reasonable, although I am not sure why it is there; I would support 11 June or 19 June—particularly 11 June, which is my girlfriend's birthday and would have some sentimental value, if nothing else. The point is, however, that we need more reassurance than the Government have given about the form of government that London can expect.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he was prepared to debate the matter some other time. Let us debate it first, and then return to parliamentary boundaries. Opposition Members consider it imperative for us to know what the people of London can look forward to before deciding that their parliamentary representation adequately reflects their needs and aspirations.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry to interrupt, but my hon. Friend has mentioned the governance of London. Did he observe the ghost of Christmas past sidling into the Chamber and seating himself on the Front Bench, in the form of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)?

Mr. Dowd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sincerely hope that it is not the ghost of Christmas to come, otherwise we are all in for a pretty lean time.
The primary function of the Greater London council was as a redistributive tax mechanism. The Government chose to abolish that, and once they had done so the council's value to Londoners, principally to inner Londoners, was zero, because the problems of inner London are not the same as the problems of outer London: the problems of Surbiton are not the problems of Deptford. Simply to hoick them into a job-lot for the convenience of the Conservative party was a totally inadequate reason for the existence of the GLC once its redistributive mechanism had been lost.

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman makes one of the strong points that the Conservative party has made consistently in the past decade—that the interests of the people of Surbiton were not the same as the interests of the people of Deptford. Therefore, the Greater London council was superfluous, irrelevant and a costly nonsense, which is why we got rid of it.

Mr. Dowd: The Conservative party got rid of the GLC when it ceased to serve its purpose.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you confirm that we are still dealing with amendment No. 8, my copy of which may be printed differently from the hon. Gentleman's, but which seems to refer to the boundaries of London boroughs, not to the future or past of the Greater London council or a greater London authority?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has been going rather wide of the amendment. I try to give reasonable latitude to hon. Members, but I hope that the hon. Member will take that point on board.

Mr. Dowd: I apologise if I have stretched parliamentary convention to its limits, and perhaps beyond it. I am learning rapidly.
I hope that you, Dame Janet, will forgive Labour Members if they express grave misgivings about the proposed Banham commission. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East word for word, lest I have to leap out to the Hansard office every few moments.

Mr. Tony Banks: Given the allegations that have been made, my hon. Friend can call me an old cynic if he likes, but when the chairman of the Local Government Commission is the ex-director general of the CBI—an organisation that is well known as the lickspittle of the Government—it is not surprising that we think that there is some stitch-up going on.

Mr. Dowd: As I said, I am learning fast in this place. I have just learnt not to let my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West sit behind me, because that is what I have written down here.
Before Sir John Banham was director general of the CBI, and before he was knighted, he was in charge of the Audit Commission. Where do hon. Members imagine the current director general of the Audit Commission will go when the director general of the CBI retires?

Mr. Banks: Give us a clue.

Mr. Dowd: I shall happily give way if anybody wants to answer. Howard Davies of the Audit Commission will occupy the seat that will be vacated by Sir John Banham.

Mr. Banks: It is a disgrace.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The only disgrace is the way in which Members are intervening from sedentary positions. I suggest that everybody sit more quietly and that we permit the hon. Member to resume his speech, but strictly according to the amendment under consideration.

Mr. Dowd: The Banham commission is a central part of the Bill, certainly of future provisions for boundaries.

Mr. Winnick: As the amendment refers to the report of the boundary commission, is it not essential that we should have full confidence in the impartiality of the boundary commissioners? If there is a feeling that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) have pointed out, we cannot have confidence in the impartiality of the commissioners, that is


disturbing indeed. I do not know whether corruption has occurred, but in the past 13 years the Conservative Government have been keen to place their own people in positions of authority. If boundary commissioners are sympathetic to the Tory cause, our confidence in their impartiality is undermined. The Home Secretary had to reassure us that all is well with the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I am rather disturbed by everything—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Not for the first time, I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. That was far from short.

Mr. Dowd: I shall explain why some of us are so suspicious about the powers that have been granted to the Banham commission. Dulwich Conservative association, whose most illustrious member is Lady Barking, has called for the creation of a borough comprising the southern part of the London borough of Lambeth, the southern part of the London borough of Southwark and two wards forming the western part of the London borough of Lewisham. Such a creation had never occurred to anybody in the history of south London. Such an artifice would have so little in common with the people and communities that it covered that it would defy logic, except in one respect: it would create a Conservative-held stronghold in an area that is currently denied to it. Labour Members are deeply alarmed about the Banham commission having powers to create such monstrosities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This is becoming a slightly schoolboy debate, with Labour Members attacking the impartiality of the commissioners. We know that the vast majority of sensible members of the Labour party, as opposed to a few left-wing Labour Members from London, do not agree. The Banham commission is not the subject matter of the Bill. We are dealing with the parliamentary boundary commission, which nobody can traduce. The purpose of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just made clear, would be to delay the English boundary review until the year 2000. That delay cannot be defended on any high moral ground by the Labour party. It is seeking to go back on its acceptance of the Bill, and the principles behind it, on Second Reading. It is disgraceful that it has moved an amendment that is a thinly veiled disguise for an attempt to delay the Bill and has tried to occupy the high moral ground by making unjustified attacks on the impartiality of public servants who give up their time for the boundary commission.

Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have now seen the disturbing face of prejudice, bias and corruption, which confirms what I said earlier. May I appeal to you to suspend the sitting until members of the boundary commission can be brought here to give detailed answers to the points of corruption that we have raised?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The answer is no.

Mr. Dowd: Conservative Members will be delighted to know that I have almost finished.

Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly help us by saying exactly what would give him confidence in the boundary commission? Would it help if, for example, the commission were to bend the arrangements slightly in one

or two constituencies to enable Labour to secure seats that it does not already have? What else would give Labour confidence? It would help us enormously to know precisely what it had in mind.

Mr. Dowd: In response to that intervention, one thing that would reassure me would be for John Banham to have absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary constituency boundaries in the future.
As I said, the people of London have been singularly ill-served by Tory stewardship in the past. The bigotry of the Thatcher years was merely its zenith, not its origin. Until we have a damn sight more reassurance than is forthcoming at the moment, hon. Members representing London constituencies in particular will not stand by and let people in inner London be so ill-served in the future.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister conceded that there was something different about London, and I gathered from his brief speech that he is opposing the amendment because of the timing. What he said about the date was reinforced by the Home Secretary, but I think that the Minister will agree that there is a reason for delaying the review—not necessarily for the time mentioned in the amendment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister shakes his head, but let us test that. Once the boundary commission has presented its recommendations to the Home Secretary this autumn, is not the plan to lay the necessary statutory instruments in 1993? I think that that is the timetable.

Mr. Lloyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister nods. That means that around this time next year there will be some debate on the merits of the statutory instruments, whatever they may be. It is clear from the scope given to the boundary commission, which I quoted in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and which he also quoted in his concluding remarks, that it is at least conceivable—I hope that the Minister will respond briefly—that he intends to publish the recommendations before he decides which to accept.
The timing is important. Until the recommendations are published, until the statutory instrument is laid or until the Minister states that he does not intend to lay one, it is conceivable that any London borough—I presume that the power is not merely for one but for any number to be abolished—which feels that it might be up for dissolution will feel any degree of security. That is how I understand it, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the timetable. If it is, I suggest that any degree of certainty for local government administration and the distribution of seats is at risk. Therefore, uncertainty precedes the delay that we are advocating.

Mr. Lloyd: Any recommendations of any commission must cause uncertainty before they are known, because no one knows what they suggest. The boundary commission will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the near future. He will introduce orders to put into effect the recommendations as they stand or with modifications, or he may decide not to introduce orders, but that will be made known to the House and it will be for the House to decide whether a statutory instrument should be put into


effect. The timetable will be such that there will be time for the parliamentary boundary commission to have regard to the recommendations in the proposals which it must make to the Home Secretary at the end of 1994. That is clear and logical.
I hope that it satisfies the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) because there is no other way to proceed if we are to achieve what Labour Members apparently want—no change to the parliamentary boundaries in London until we have the borough boundaries in place as they are likely to be for the next decade. That will be the case because the review of local government boundaries will be carried out by the present local government boundary commission, and the new one that is taking over is not due to report until the normal interval has elapsed, which should take us well into the next century.

Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister has confirmed almost precisely what I was saying. My concern is not only with the linkage of parliamentary seats and the future of local government in London but with the uncertainty that must arise between now and when the Minister or the Home Secretary chooses to reveal his intentions about any such recommendations. That reinforces the case for some delay.
This debate has been partly a London debate, but the two Ministers do not represent London constituencies. I make no complaint about that, but they should realise that in London the link between the function of a Member of Parliament and the function of local government is, I suspect, rather more intimate than in other parts of the country, not least because the functions—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary should not laugh.
The functions of the Greater London council were not those advertised by the former Government in their propaganda. The GLC was fundamental to the services of London and if its duties are not taken on by the borough councils, they must be taken on by hon. Members. Therefore, the number of issues with which London Members have to deal day after day, in telephone message after telephone message and green card after green card, in relatively small constituencies but in highly complex urban areas are of a different character and calibre from those facing many hon. Members from other parts of the country. That is especially true in comparison with those representing cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham which have different local government set-ups to which they can refer.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have listened to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose views I usually respect. My expression was one of exasperation because he has not accepted the clear explanation that account will be taken of London local government boundaries when the parliamentary boundary commission reports. The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by some of the earlier debate. He does not belong to the loony left in London, although the debate has largely been dominated by the loony left which has attacked members of the Banham commission, which is not involved in the process, and has taken the opportunity to attack people who are not in the House to defend themselves.
The local government commission sitting in London is almost due to report. That commission, which is not the one chaired by Sir John Banham, will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the very near future. He will no doubt make proposals to the House in the light of its recommendations. That will be in time for the parliamentary boundary commission, which we are now considering, to take into account the new boundaries when it undertakes its review which we believe should end by December 1994. When the—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should be short, even those from Secretaries of State.

Mr. Clarke: I apologise, Dame Janet, but I hope that what I said was clear. The hon. Gentleman's argument was beside the point. The amendment would delay the whole shooting match until the year 2000.

Mr. Spearing: The Home Secretary's need to enlighten the Committee—I am grateful to him—underlines my point. There is a degree of uncertainty in the matter which should not exist. I agree with the Home Secretary that there is a sequence in the report of the local government boundary commission, the laying of orders and the final recommendations of the parliamentary boundary commission.
My point concerns the opportunity that the House will have to discuss and to consider those recommendations. Despite my request, the Minister has not said when that opportunity will be. I suggest—I think that the Minister agrees—that boundaries could be changed in London by the laying of a single statutory instrument. I do not know whether it will be a negative or an affirmative instrument. Even if it is an affirmative instrument, the local government map of London could be changed by a maximum of one and a half hours of debate.
6.30 pm
The extent to which the Conservative party wipes away the importance of local government can be illustrated by the statutory instrument which set up the London Docklands development corporation. Half of its area is in my constituency, but I was not even able to speak on that instrument. I suggest to Ministers that they take a little more care in their concern for the operation of local government and for the work of their hon. Friends in Greater London than they have done previously.

Mr. Tony Banks: My point relates to something that the Home Secretary said in his intervention. Does my hon. Friend share my sense of annoyance about the Home Secretary's reaction when we criticise someone such as Sir John Banham, formerly director general of the Confederation of British Industry? If a Labour Government had put a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress in charge of a boundary commission, the accusations from Conservative Members would be legion. It is a bit much for the Home Secretary to say that we are crying foul when he knows damn well that if we put up one of our stooges in place of one of the Government's stooges, he would say precisely what I have been saying.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend knows well that commissions which look at matters objectively carry the


confidence of all parties. From what I have heard of the debate this evening, that does not appear to be the case in this instance.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The underlying point is that the amendment includes the word "delay", and the delay concerns the bringing in of fairer constituencies. The electorates of the three Newham Members added together come to roughly the same as the electorate of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the electorate of my hon. Friend the Minister. Looked at in that way, the Labour party is arguing for unfair constituencies and unfair voting.

Mr. Spearing: My case does not necessarily concern the dates. The amendment is a probing amendment. I seek greater care and, therefore, a longer time scale, which could be called delay, for considering these important matters.
I will explain why boundaries in London are important by reference to the Minister's speech. The Minister told us that the Conservative party made clear in its election manifesto that there was to be a Cabinet committee which, in effect, would take over responsibility for the co-ordination of public affairs in London. Previously, that co-ordination was the responsibility of the Greater London council. In relation to the east Thames corridor or the organisation of docklands, there may be a recommendation from the boundary commission for significant changes. All sorts of rumours have been going round about that. It will be necessary to take a far longer period in which to consider the consequences.
So far, the Government have not shown any sensitivity when dealing with strategic affairs in London. If they had, we should not have the debacle of Canary Wharf, the debacle of the docklands light railway or what is likely to be a further debacle—the mess over the docklands-Thames corridor and the planning for the high-speed link to the channel. That may appear to be a long way from local government, but it is not in view of its consequences for London. I support the element of delay and the element of reconsideration which are the main parts of the amendment.

Mr. Darling: This has been a useful debate even though, at times, it has strayed rather more widely from the terms of the amendment than I might have anticipated.
As I and some of my hon. Friends have said, the amendment is essentially a probing amendment. Given the narrow nature of the long title of the Bill, it was possible only to table such an amendment if we were to remain in order. The purpose of the amendment was to draw the Government on what they planned to do about the structure of local government in London over the next few years, which has some significance for the parliamentary boundary commission.
The Home Secretary is right in saying that the date of 12 June 2000 is arbitrary. In fact, the date was 1 June when the amendment left my desk; it seems to have been transcribed as 12 June by the time it appeared on the amendment paper. As the date was arbitrary, I saw no need to table a further amendment or to do something to get it back to 1 June.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to delay. There is no intention to delay the report of the boundary commission until the year 2000, which would be absurd. Equally, it would be absurd to hold back the

boundary commission for England just because there might be problems in London. That was not the point, as I think the Minister, the Home Secretary and those advising them—although they will have advised Ministers to answer the points in detail—will have grasped. They understand that the object of the exercise was to try to ascertain from the Government what they planned to do with regard to local government in London.
Interestingly, Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members raised questions about the future government of London. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who is not in his place, clearly has territorial ambitions as he represents the smallest constituency in London, if not in England. He asked where London would end in the next few years, and whether it would extend or whether the area covered by the London boroughs would decrease.
Under the terms of schedule 4 to the 1986 Act, it is clearly intended by Parliament that the boundary commission must have substantial regard to the London boroughs. Our argument is that if the pattern of the London boroughs is to change over the next eight to 10 years, we should know so that the boundary commission can have regard to those changes. I say that for all the reasons given by hon. Members of all parties. I am glad that the Minister appears to be nodding; at last he has grasped the point.
Other useful points were raised. I emphasise one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be off checking Hansard again. He drew our attention to the fact that from the terms of the parliamentary answer given by the Home Secretary today to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who has also gone, the quota entitlement for Brent would be 2.4, although, as I said earlier, 18,000 people were missing from the register between 1987 and 1992. If the boundary commission wants to reach the correct allocation of seats, it should have regard to the actual number of people in Brent rather than merely to those on the register, if the register is inaccurate.
Other hon. Members have drawn attention time and again to the point that there are problems in London because we believe that the Government intend to change the pattern of local government there. I and my hon. Friends referred to the report by the local government boundary commission which has drawn attention to substantial difficulties in drawing boundaries in London. It has drawn attention to the role and functions of local government in London, and to the mixed pattern of administration between Government and non-Government bodies.
Given the powers of the local government boundary commission, the report is extremely strong stuff. It asks the Government to have regard to the formidable difficulties in London. In an intervention in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew attention to paras (d) and (e) of section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992, which make it clear that the Local Government Commission—the body chaired by Sir John Banham, as opposed to the local government boundary commission—has the power to examine the constitution of London boroughs.
If the Government intended the Local Government Commission to examine the constitution of London boroughs, they must have contemplated that the boroughs would be changed. If changes are made to the boroughs,


changes will be made to the boundaries. The local government boundary commission might wish to have regard to all those matters when compiling the report which it will lay before Parliament some time after the end of 1994.
I said that the amendment was a probing amendment, and so it is, to a substantial degree. It was never intended to be a perfectly drafted amendment suitable for inclusion in the Bill. It was not the intention to table a wrecking amendment. Indeed, a wrecking amendment probably would not have been in order. But, as the Government have failed to give any satisfactory answer on what they plan for London, even though the Secretary of State and the Minister are here to answer on behalf of the Government—whether the answer is from the Home Office or any other Department is irrelevant—I regret that the Opposition feel that we should press the matter to a Division. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 302.

Division No. 40]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson. Donald (Swansea E)
Cummings. John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies. Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bennett. Andrew F.
Dowd, Jim


Benton, Joe
Dunnachie. Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody. Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Enright, Derek


Boyce, Jimmy
Etherington, William


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell. Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galbraith, Sam


Canavan, Dennis
Gapes, Michael


Cann, James
Garrett, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
George, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham. Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gunnell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hall. Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hardy, Peter
Olner, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Heppell, John
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Kate
Pope. Greg


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoff
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Purchase, Ken


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Redmond, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jamieson, David
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross. Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Salmond, Alex


Khabra, Piara
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Simpson, Alan


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Alice
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mandelson, Peter
Tipping, Paddy


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Watson, Mike


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Milburn, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot
Wright, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Mudie, George
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.






NOES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillen, Ms Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nicholas


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, Sir James


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom





Kirkhope, Timothy
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trimble, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 44, at end add—


`(4) In Schedule 2, rule 4(c), of the 1986 Act, for the word "ward" there shall be substituted the words "district electoral area".'.
After what we have listened to for the past couple of hours, it is interesting to arrive at the debate on this amendment. We have heard about the inviolability of London borough boundaries and about the difficulties that arise from sticking to borough and county boundaries in any revision of parliamentary boundaries in England and Wales—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but there is too much noise and I find it difficult to hear him speak.

Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Dame Janet. I used my comments on the previous debate partly as a throat-clearing exercise, because I had expected Members to make some hubbub when dispersing.
The idea for the amendment occurred to me after listening to, and reflecting on, the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on Second Reading. He dealt with the difficulties encountered in Birmingham, which comprises about one dozen constituencies, each based on three or four wards. As I recollect, two were based on four wards and the remainder on three. The hon. Member said that each Birmingham ward contained about 19,000 electors, so that the size of constituencies increases in steps of 19,000.
The rules in the schedule to the Act direct attention to county boundaries in England and Wales and to London borough boundaries, and the basic building blocks for parliamentary boundaries in England and Wales are wards, which are also the basic electoral units.
The reason why I tabled the amendment, and why I hope that it will commend itself to the House, is that the situation in Northern Ireland is anomalous. The rules in the schedule apply, not to county, borough or district boundaries, but to ward boundaries. That is anomalous in itself, but it is even more so in Northern Ireland, where wards have no electoral significance.
Let me explain some of the background. Until local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, local authorities operated on a basis comparable to that in England and Wales. Authorities—whether counties, county boroughs or boroughs—were divided into multi-Member wards, electing three Members of Parliament, on roughly the same basis as those in England and Wales. During the reorganisation it was proposed that the three-Member wards should be replaced by smaller single-Member wards. The reasoning behind that suggestion had much to commend it. Unfortunately, in 1973 a form of proportional representation was
Introduced—a single transferable vote—which required multi-Member wards, and so the proposed single-Member wards were grouped together for electoral purposes into what were called district electoral areas, which remain the basis unit for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland.
Under the' regulations now in force, a district electoral area must consist of five, six or seven wards. The wards notionally exist; we have ward boundaries and the electoral register is prepared on a ward basis. However, for electoral purposes the ward is not significant. The district electoral area is the significant element for electoral purposes. That is the area in which the vote takes place and

on which the count operates. Obviously, party structure and organisation is, or should be, related to the district electoral area, of which the ward is just a sub-division and is of significance only to the structure of the electoral register.
7 pm
The spirit behind the rules in the schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is that local government units should be the basic building blocks for parliamentary boundaries. That is sensible. There are horrendous problems if parliamentary boundaries march across the basic electoral unit. That does not happen in England and Wales because the parliamentary boundaries are drawn up on ward boundaries and they are largely confined within counties and county boroughs. That is not the position in Northern Ireland.
I shall pursue the analogy between Belfast and Birmingham. In the city of Belfast there are 200,000 voters, which is significantly fewer than the three-quarters of a million in Birmingham. The 200,000 voters in Belfast are divided among nine district electoral areas. That gives each district electoral area a number of voters that is not much different from the figure of 19,000 in Birmingham. The hon. Member for Perry Barr pointed out that in Birmingham the constituencies are made up of three or four wards. Those wards are analogous in size to the district electoral areas in Belfast.
How are the four constituencies of Belfast divided? Belfast, South and Belfast, West each contain two entire district electoral areas and part of a third. Therefore, part of the boundary of each constituency runs across the middle of a district electoral area. Belfast, North contains one complete district electoral area only and two that are divided. The situation is worse in Belfast, East, which contains parts of three district electoral areas. That constituency does not contain a single complete district electoral area and the parliamentary constituency operates on boundaries that are quite different from those of local government. It cuts across not only district electoral areas, but the city boundary to take in parts of Castlereagh.
A similar pattern exists in other Northern Ireland constituencies. The problem is not quite so acute outside Belfast because smaller councils and, consequently, smaller district electoral areas exist. The parliamentary boundaries correspond entirely to those of local government in just two of the constituencies in Northern Ireland. By local government boundaries, I am referring to the basic electoral units in Northern Ireland—the district electoral areas. In 15 of the 17 seats, the district electoral areas are split. In fact, 13 district electoral areas are split and two of them are split three ways. The parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland cut across district council and county areas.
In England and Wales, regard must be given to county boundaries or, in London, to borough boundaries. The amendment does not suggest that regard should be given to district or city council boundaries in Northern Ireland. For the past couple of hours, I have listened to London Members who have spoken about such boundaries at great length. However, I am merely asking that, in Northern Ireland, the constituencies should relate to the basic unit used in local government elections. At present, that is not the case and it causes problems to my party and, I understand, to other political parties in Northern Ireland. I have not consulted other parties about the amendment,


so one should not read into my comments a claim that other political parties endorse it. I should be surprised, however, if they were opposed to it.
Would making district electoral areas the basic unit for parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland cause any problems? I think not. In Northern Ireland there are nearly 100 district electoral areas and there would be no great difficulty in matching parliamentary boundaries to those areas. For example, there are nine district electoral areas in Belfast and, traditionally, Belfast has always had four constituencies. That does not create any problems because the basic units would simply go beyond the city council boundary and into the suburbs. In fact, the Belfast city boundary is artificially restricted because of the jealousy of the Stormont Government towards Belfast city council, but that is not relevant to the debate. The adjoining councils of Castlereagh, Newtownabbey and Lisburn are in all respects extensions of Belfast and there would be no problem in including district electoral areas from those councils to reach the appropriate figure to create a constituency. That could be done without creating any great disparity in numbers.
If there are difficulties, we should remember that rule 4 in the schedule is prefaced by the phrase "So far as practicable". Therefore, the regard to be given to ward boundaries, as stated in the present wording of the schedule, or to district electoral boundaries, as the amendment would suggest, is not absolute. It can be overridden so far as that is practicable. In fact, in Northern Ireland, that qualifying phrase has been invoked by the boundary commission to divide eleven wards. Therefore, the ward unit, which has no significance for electoral purposes, has been divided in eleven cases—10 are in Belfast and the other is in Newry. That is indefensible.
Another factor makes this an appropriate time to make the change. In Northern Ireland, we are concluding the revision of local government wards. The next stage in that process will be the appointment of a commissioner to draw together the wards into district electoral areas. In the normal course of events, we would expect that appointment to be made fairly soon. I am not sure of the exact date and do not know whether the Northern Ireland Office has made an announcement, but we could expect the process to be completed by the beginning of next year.
That revision must he made soon because we need to know the district electoral areas before the local government elections next May. Would hon. Members from England tolerate it if, 11 months before elections, they did not know the boundaries on which those elections would be fought? In Northern Ireland, the elections will be fought, not on ward boundaries, but on district electoral area boundaries. I refer to the current revision because if it is thought that there would be any difficulty in switching from ward to district electoral area boundaries in the revision of parliamentary boundaries, which will take place shortly, that can be taken into account now when drawing up the new district electoral areas.
Therefore, I see no difficulty in adopting the amendment, which should be regarded as technical because it brings the legislation into line with the adoption of proportional representation. I suspect that the reference to wards in the Bill has been carried forward from earlier legislation when we did not have proportional representa-tion in Northern Ireland. Many of us would love to get rid of it, but, for the purposes of the amendment, we accept its existence and argue that one should operate, as the spirt

of the schedule suggests, on the relevant local government boundaries. The relevant local government boundary in Northern Ireland is not a ward boundary, but a district electoral area boundary. Therefore, it is logical to base parliamentary boundaries on those district electoral area boundaries.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am interested that a Unionist Member should seek further to entrench an arrangement which springs from the unique single transferable voting system in Northern Ireland. Perhaps matters and opinions have moved on in Northern Ireland more speedily than I would have predicted when I was able to take a closer interest in matters in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: I do not want the Minister to misunderstand the situation. It is similar to the temporary nature of direct rule. We have to live with the present situation, which causes significant inconvenience in terms of fighting elections, party structure and organisation, and so on. We are not debating our fundamental objection to proportional representation. As for its removal, it would be easy to change back by way of a consequential amendment.

Mr. Lloyd: I have always known that there is nothing so permanent as the strictly temporary.
The amendment would substitute, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, district electoral areas for wards as the basic and generally indivisible building blocks for constituencies in Northern Ireland. I followed his argument that there would be considerable
convenience from the point of view of political organisations in Northern Ireland if those district electoral areas were never divided between constituencies, as I believe about 30 are at present. The hon. Gentleman did not mention a figure and I understand that he does not dispute my figure of 30, which is a sizeable number, and I appreciate the inconvenience.
If I understand the situation correctly, in many cases difficulty has arisen because the last reviews were conducted in an unhelpful order. New constituencies were constructed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission in 1982. That was followed by the work of the local government boundaries commissioner, who constructed new wards, some of which crossed the new parliamentary boundaries. Then the district electoral areas were formed, as the 1984 order required, by linking between five and seven wards together.
On this occasion, the sequence is the other way round. The local government boundaries commissioner, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, presented on 15 June recommendations for local government boundaries. Should the Secretary of State accept them, with or without modification, they will be incorporated in an order. Recommendations will then follow for the revision, as necessary, of the district electoral areas. Thus, unlike last time, before it reports the parliamentary boundary commission will be able to consider the new local government ward and DEA boundaries before making its recommendations to the Secretary of State.
It is for the boundary commission to decide whether a parliamentary constituency boundary should cross a DEA boundary. I would expect some, perhaps even most, of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Upper Bann outlined


to disappear because the parliamentary boundary commission must have regard to local links and other such factors.
As the hon. Gentleman heard in the last debate to which he referred, I am, for a vast variety of practical reasons, reluctant to change rules for the parliamentary commissioner. There is also a great deal of convenience if the building block remains the ward, as it is sufficiently small to make it extremely unlikely that it will need to be sub-divided.
If the basic block were to be the larger DEA of five to seven wards, rule 5 of schedule 2 to the 1986 Act could bite, as in practice it does not bite under the present arrangements because the DEAs are much larger. That would oblige the commissioner to divide a DEA between constitu-encies if not to do so would, in the commissioner's judgment, produce unacceptable disparities in constituency size.

Mr. Trimble: If that is the Minister's argument for retaining wards in Northern Ireland, why will he not apply the logic of that argument in England and Wales, where they operate with much larger units?

Mr. Lloyd: We are retaining wards not as building blocks that may never be split. In fact, they are not split, and the hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the reorganisation of constituencies, that wards are units that are put together with other wards from other local authorities to form constituencies that cross local authority boundaries. So in practice they usually are the building blocks. To move to the DEA as the building block would not rule out there being a division of the DEA if those other factors demanded it.
I also pointed out that the divisions that Northern Ireland had experienced in the last decade or so stemmed from the order in which the last reviews were taken. The boundary commission must pay some regard to local authority boundaries and links. But in constructing local authority wards—and, in Northern Ireland, DEAs—the local government commissioner need not have regard for constituency boundaries.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood the Minister's argument to rest on wards not being divided. Some of our wards are divided even to make a DEA, and that is confusing not only for electoral workers but for constituents who believe that they live in a part of the city represented by one Member of Parliament but discover that, when they wish to raise an issue, they must make representations to a different Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has succeeded in teasing out the issues here at Westminster so that guidance may be given to those who are now drawing up the boundaries.

Mr. Lloyd: That is right, and the present unsatisfactory and inconvenient state of affairs exists because, as I said, the boundary commission did its work before the local government boundaries commissioner had done his work. The parliamentary boundary commission must have regard to those factors, but the local government boundaries commissioner need not have regard to parliamentary boundaries. Hence the problem of wards

being divided between constituencies. It was the order in which things were done. That is being remedied this time round.
It is up to the boundary commission to decide what it reports, and it will have the opportunity of knowing what the local authority boundaries are. The ward boundaries and DEAs will be known when it produces its proposals for the Secretary of State's consideration. It did not have that advantage on the last occasion. In the new order in which matters will be tackled on this occasion lies the solution, if not to all then at least to a considerable number of the problems that have been outlined.
I cannot say that all the problems will be solved because it is not for me to determine what the boundary commission will recommend. But knowing that that commission will operate with common sense—it is obliged to look at the existing boundaries and take them properly into account—it is likely that the cutting in two of wards will not be a feature of the new arrangement that it recommends.

Mr. William Ross: Surely it is unreasonable totally to ignore the existence of DEAs in Northern Ireland. They must be mentioned somewhere so that the parties and others concerned with the issue in Northern Ireland can point the commissioner to a particular boundary to which he must give cognisance, even if he need not follow it rigidly.
The present situation is a nonsense and the DEAs are totally ignored by the commissioner in drawing up boundaries. That should not happen. It is a matter of common sense that if we are to apply various boundaries in the United Kingdom generally, the same should apply to all of the United Kingdom. When we talk about boroughs in London, we should also talk about DEAs in Northern Ireland. If the commissioner finds it convenient on some occasions to split DEAs, well and good, but he should have to take notice of their existence.

Mr. Lloyd: The boundary commission is required to take notice of links. It is not specifically required to take notice of DEAs and, in the rest of the United Kingdom, for example in England, it is not required to take notice of district council boundaries. Yet much political activity is based, certainly in local government terms, on the district council area.
I understand the complaint about the present position. The boundary commission will be able to deal with it under schedule 2 of the 1986 Act, which makes it clear that it must have regard to those links. Ultimately, however, it must make up its mind, in the light of that schedule, given the need to have constituencies of reasonably equal size.
I cannot provide hon. Gentlemen with a remedy to the problems that they envisage. By accepting the amendment, I would not necessarily be doing so because, ultimately, it is the boundary commission's judgment. Many, if not all, of the problems that the hon. Gentlemen have outlined will be dealt with by the sequence of the reviews of local government, DEAs and parliamentary constituency boundaries. Furthermore, I do not believe that if the change urged on me by the hon. Gentleman were put in place, it would of itself have the beneficial effect that he seeks.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister has made much about the commissioner's duty to have regard to local ties. He suggested that, thereby, a regard to DEAs could be


smuggled in. But paragraph 7(b) of the schedule refers to local ties that would be broken by such alterations. That is, alterations consequent on rule 4, which is splitting wards. It does not involve having regard to the DEAs, which are larger units than wards.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman could refer to several parts of the schedule. For instance, section 7 says:
It shall not be the duty of a boundary commission to aim at giving full effect in all circumstances to the above rules but they should take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituency, other than alterations made for the purpose of rule 4, and any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".
So the ties would already have been established by the adjustment, if an adjustment is to be made, of the boundaries of the DEAs. They would exist by the time the boundary commission considered its proposals for parliamentary constituency boundaries.
I shall not satisfy the hon. Gentleman in this debate. He has not convinced me that his amendment would produce the effect that he desires. As I said before, I am loath to introduce changes to the rules under which boundary commissions operate when reviews in various parts of the United Kingdom have gone so far down the track. However, the hon. Gentleman can pin considerable hope on the order in which the reviews will be undertaken and the fact that this time the parliamentary boundary commission for Northern Ireland will take into account the arrangements being made for local government and DEAs.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's point in response to my hon. Friend, when he admitted that he had not convinced him. Will he rely on the common sense of the commissioners? I was taught by professors that common sense is the most uncommon of all the senses. I wonder whether we can rest revision on such a statement or whether the Minister will support his colleagues and

restore the single member constituency. We would then be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom and would not have all those problems.

Mr. Lloyd: That lies outside my power under the Bill. The commissioners have taken a considerable battering this afternoon but the hon. Gentleman's assault was more delicate and feline than the others that we have heard. We can rely on the common sense of the Ministers and must do so because they understand the existing rules and must put forward their recommendations. This time they will put them forward for Northern Ireland with the knowledge of what has been proposed for local government in Northern Ireland. That was not the case when the present boundaries were drawn up.

Mr. Trimble: I am not convinced by what the Minister has said, but we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

As amended, to be considered tomorrow.

PROTECTION OF BADGERS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Criminal Law

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It may be for the convenience of the House to know that with this order we shall take the second order:
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Mr. Jack: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that clarification.
This Order in Council signals our determination to press ahead with measures to strengthen international co-operation against drug trafficking. The Government put around £½ billion a year into efforts to tackle drug misuse. The steps that we are taking today are just one example of our resolve to tackle drug misuse on the international front. In recent years, we have made great advances in our ability to deal with the drug problem at the international level. Our investigators are using ever more sophisticated equipment and techniques. We are at the forefront of efforts to improve international co-operation. We have been very active in our support of international organisations such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe. We have also given encouragement to other countries in their efforts to deal with the problem, including the provision of equipment, financial support, and the sharing of expertise.
Last year, we ratified both the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances—more commonly known as the Vienna convention—and the 1959 European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Those events marked a significant step forward in our ability to co-operate with other countries in international investiga-tions and criminal proceedings. The Vienna convention provides a framework for countries to co-operate on, among other things, the tracing, freezing and confiscating of the assets of drug traffickers. Even before the convention took shape, the United Kingdom had embarked on the creation of a network of bilateral agreements on the tracing, restraint and confiscation of assets. That exercise was made possible by our strong confiscatory powers—contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986—which are an important part of our anti-drugs strategy, both domestically and internationally. We now have 25 such agreements, and the network is constantly expanding.
Our powers to restrain and confiscate proceeds may be extended only to countries which have been designated by Order in Council. By bringing forward such orders, we are able to keep up to date the designation of countries which have ratified the Vienna convention, or with which we have concluded a bilaterial confiscation agreement in the recent past. The House has already approved several such orders, and we have now designated a total of 51 countries and territories. Like its predecessor, which the House approved in June 1991, the present order has its legal basis

in section 26 of the 1986 Act. As before, it simply amends the original order made under the 1986 Act by adding to the list of countries designated in that order. The new countries are named in the schedule to the order.
The House will no doubt be aware that asset seizure legislation is a highly complex and technical sector of the law; even more so in the international context. Drug traffickers are constantly looking for more sophisticated ways of concealing their ill-gotten gains. We must do all that we can to stay ahead of their efforts and block any avenues which are open to them. The order has that purpose in mind. First, it will enable us to implement the bilateral agreements that we have recently negotiated with a further four countries—Argentina, Germany, Guyana and Uruguay. Secondly, it will ensure that we continue to comply with our international obligations under the Vienna convention by designating those countries which have decided to ratify the convention since the last amending order.
The order is made in the spirit of reciprocity, and it is understood that the countries designated would be able to offer to us the same powers in return. It will enable us to enforce requests from any of the countries listed in the schedule to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. By proceeds, we mean the traffickers' profits in all their guises—cash, property, investments and so on. Perhaps I should mention here that the other order, which I shall be moving shortly, will enable us to do the same as regards instruments used in drug trafficking—such as cars, boats or aircraft—as this order enables us to do for proceeds.
A Scottish equivalent of this order is being laid separately. A separate order in respect of the enforcement of confiscation orders in Northern Ireland is not required; any country which is designated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act for England and Wales is automatically designated for Northern Ireland.
To make the legislation effective, we have established a single system to handle all requests from overseas to restrain and confiscate assets. At the centre of this system is the United Kingdom central authority, a department in the Home Office which receives and dispatches requests for mutual legal assistance. The central authority acts as the point of contact between equivalent overseas authorities and the prosecutors in this country who will put foreign requests before the courts for enforcement. When the central authority receives a request from a designated country, it checks its acceptability and passes it immediately to the national criminal intelligence service. A unit within NCIS then co-ordinates our response to the request. In practice, the NCIS will arrange for either the Crown prosecution service or customs prosecutors to carry out the necessary enforcement action in the High Court. When dealing with requests from the additional countries designated in the orders, the courts will be exercising a general discretion in deciding whether or not to comply with the request. An order from a foreign court will not be enforced unless it is clear that it has been properly made. Safeguards exist to protect the rights and liberties of the accused or convicted person and the rights of third parties who may be affected by the enforcement process.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Before the new regulations take effect, may I ask how much money, if any, has been received under the old order as a result of confiscation seizures?

Mr. Jack: As far as I am aware, the latest cumulative figure for orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act is £35 million, about £10 million of which has already been recovered. We also have moneys gifted to us under the seized assets fund, which runs parallel to those arrangements.

Mr. Steen: What actually happens to that money? Is it used for a specific purpose or does it just go into the fund? [Interruption.]

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) tries to anticipate my response. The larger sum of money goes to the Consolidated Fund and contributes towards the £500 million that goes towards the Government's overall fight against drugs. Money that goes into the seized assets fund can be used for a number of schemes to further the fight against drugs, including the purchase of sophisticated computer equipment to assist us in that work. If my hon. Friend wants further details, I shall be pleased to write to him.
In the case of restraint orders, the High Court will want to be sure that proceedings have been or are to be instituted in the foreign jurisdiction. No property will be restrained unless there is a realistic prospect of a confiscation order following.
A restraint order must be notified to any person affected by it. All those affected have a right to apply at any time for the order to be varied or discharged. No property may be realised in satisfaction of a confiscation order unless people with an interest in it have had an opportunity to make representations to the court. Those are essentially the same conditions as those applying to restraint, confiscation and forfeiture in domestic proceedings. The House can therefore be assured that due care has been taken to uphold the proper standards of justice which everyone in this country is entitled to expect.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is replying. I know that he fully supported the drug trafficking legislation when the previous order was debated in Committee in June 1991. I sincerely hope that we can rely on his continuing support for this and future orders, whether they are taken in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me pleasure to support the Government on this occasion. The Opposition have always supported measures which aim to prevent international drug traffickers salting away their ill-gotten gains so that even long prison sentences seem relatively rewarding. If a drug trafficker is put in prison for 10 or even 15 years, the colossal sums involved may make some of the offenders think that it is worthwhile to spend such periods in custody. We want to prevent the salting away of the proceeds of the evil trade.
It would be remiss of the Opposition not to mention one or two matters tonight. I intend to prod the Minister for some clarification as to how the orders will work and

how they will impinge on the other changes to which he alluded—agreements entered into since the last time we held such a debate.
The orders were introduced under the affirmative procedure, deriving from the 1986 Act. The Minister was kind enough to remind us that even at that time, when I was not involved, the legislation had the Opposition's support. We debated similar orders in May 1990 and again in June 1991. On both occasions, I debated the subject with the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). It was necessary at the time to add further countries to the list, since when another four have appeared on it—they are the whole point of this procedure.
I draw the Minister's attention to a press release issued by his predecessor shortly after our last debate. A Home Office press release, it is dated 29 August 1991 and entitled, "United Kingdom ratifies European convention on international crime". The convention was an important step forward. In our previous debates, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon anticipated a broader and more integrated structure in Europe for dealing with international drug trafficking and fraud. The fact that the convention would be signed was seen as important. In August 1991 the European convention described in the press release was ratified. It will radically increase co-operation between countries in the fight against international crime.
How does the convention impinge on the orders? We had looked for increased co-operation from the country closest to us, France. France is not designated in the orders, but it is a signatory to the European convention. Germany, which this evening is being added to the list of bilaterals, is already a member of the European convention on international crime, but we still have no bilateral agreement with France.
I tried to discover from the Minister's predecessor why we needed bilateral agreements with European countries once the convention came into force. We have signed that convention, yet we now add Germany to the bilateral list and France is still missing. There may be a simple answer to this question, but I hope that the Minister will give us it.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all European Community countries should automatically be part of the campaign to rid us of drugs? Is it not extraordinary that any country should choose not to co-operate? Should not the Minister lean heavily on such a country at the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Sheerman: That is precisely my point. I am fundamentally pro-European, so I did not want to call one of our great partners in Europe any names if I had misjudged its position. In our previous debates it was said that France has a different legal tradition; it has Roman law. We have common law, so extradition treaties are complicated and necessitate changes in domestic legislation.
The convention was signed in the summer of 1991 and came into effect in January 1992, so it has been in effect since only the start of this year. Perhaps the official Opposition are being rather dim on this occasion, but we still require an answer to my earlier question.
In earlier debates, we discussed the effectiveness of tracking down international criminals. Sometimes our


discussion ranged more widely, covering the increasing problem of international crime. The signing of the European convention certainly marks a healthy change, and more than 50 countries have joined the bilateral list —but do not we need to go further than treaties and bilateral agreements? Do not we need to get our hands dirty by taking on international criminals across Europe? Trevi, for instance, is important in this context. Germany seems to be adopting a more positive attitude than we are to Europol, believing that it can be used as a positive force to combat international drug crimes in particular. My impression is that Germany wants Europol to have a dedicated operational arm dealing with international drug traffickers; Britain, by contrast, seems to be dragging its feet. We say that we do not mind it having a role as an international intelligence gathering service—but no more. We should emulate the German approach to Europol.
The Minister's predecessor, discussing the convention and comparing it with these sorts of order, stated:
This convention, together with the legislation we have introduced in order to ratify it, provides a very valuable weapon in the fight against international crime—particularly fraud and drug dealing.
It is interesting that the Minister coupled fraud with drug crime. A certain newspaper empire cannot be discussed at present because the matter is sub judice, but fraud is alleged to have been perpetrated within it and money is alleged to have been salted away in European countries. There is a parallel to be drawn between methods of hunting down the ill-gotten gains from drugs and those from fraud. How would the two activities be dealt with under the convention or under the bilateral agreements?
I see that the list of signatories to the convention includes Liechtenstein and Switzerland. I often get the impression that when we are chasing the Mr. Bigs, the real criminals, the top people who have made millions of pounds out of both drugs and fraud, their money goes to safe havens in Liechtenstein and Switzerland and we cannot retrieve it.
We have a convention with which the Minister's predecessor was pleased. A press release stated that the United Kingdom had ratified the European convention on international crime, a convention that would help us with the
fight against international crime—particularly fraud and drug dealing.
The press release then goes into detail. It states that the convention will
make it possible to serve on individuals in the UK summonses and other judicial documents … empower the UK courts to seek assistance from overseas authorities in obtaining evidence for use in investigations … provide for UK prisoners to be temporarily transferred overseas … enable courts in the UK to authorise the police to exercise powers of search and seizure for evidence, on behalf of other countries; and provide for the enforcement in the UK of overseas court orders for the forfeiture of items used in the commission of serious offences.
If that means anything, a plain person's logic will cause the following questions to be asked: "Why cannot we get our hands on money that is salted away in Liechtenstein and Switzerland, whether by newspaper barons or by drug traffickers? If we have a European convention, why cannot we get our hands on money that has been derived from

crime? Why is that not possible if we have bilateral agreements with some of those countries, if not all of them?"
I hope that I have not strayed too far from the matters which are before us. I believe that I have raised an important issue and I shall seek to drive home the point. When the Minister's predecessor discussed these matters in 1990, he produced a good example. In my usual style. I said that I did not fully comprehend these matters in theoretical terms. I then asked whether he could give me an example of what actually happened. The Minister replied:
A request would be made by our central authority in the Home Office—we should be notified of the criminal's existence—to the equivalent in the Ministry of the Interior, or the Ministry of Justice, in Spain, Switzerland, the United States, or whatever, for the property in their respective jurisdiction to be restrained. This is stage one. While criminal proceedings are underway, we do not want the money to flip out of the relevant jurisdiction. Therefore, the first step is to obtain a restraining order, pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
As soon as criminal proceedings and the committal stage begin in this country, our central authority would act quickly and say, We believe that Mr. X or Mrs. Y has property in your country. A trial is pending and we wish those assets to be frozen. At the same time we should seek to put a restraint on assets owned by the accused in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 16 May 1990, c. 6.]
Is that the procedure that is now established, whether for drugs or fraud, and is it being implemented in highly publicised cases? I would go to sleep much easier tonight if I knew that the assets salted away in Switzerland or Liechtenstein by whoever would not disappear somewhere else during the period preceding a long trial. I hope that I have made my point and that I have kept in order.
Our purpose is to assess the effectiveness of the order and those which have preceded it. I was pleased when the hon. Member for south Hants—

Mr. Steen: South Hams.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman changed his constituency. I remember his previous constituency rather than his present one.
When the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) intervened and said, in effect, "How much money?", I was disappointed by the Minister's response. Almost two years ago we were talking about £27 million. Given the estimates of international drug crime, the profits that flow from it, the amount by which it is growing and the sums that are being made by international criminal syndicates, it seems that the tip of the iceberg with which we are dealing is not becoming larger at the pace that we might expect. I am concerned that we are not dealing with the sort of sum with which I would have expected us to deal at this stage.
Perhaps that reinforces my argument that we need to take a much more effective stance to buttress the order by having a much more positive agreement with others, through Trevi or Schengen, to ensure that the fight against international drug crime and the international fraudster becomes much more effective. I shall introduce the only sour note this evening by saying that we are not doing enough. International drug crime is growing rapidly and we know that the problem is becoming worse. Are we not becoming a little too complacent about our effectiveness in the fight against the international criminal?
We support the order because we will support anything that is designed to stem the flood of drugs into the United


Kingdom, but should we not consider other methods of achieving that purpose? I know that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues have a dialogue with colleagues in other Departments who are responsible for shedding 400 Customs and Excise officers over two years—a 10 per cent. cut. The order will have all-party agreement, but it is important to recognise that the most effective way of stopping drugs coming into the country is through Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The police rarely manage to get hold of any substantial quantities of drugs. That is the truth. I have asked parliamentary questions about that matter and I think that the Minister will agree with what I have said.
It is the staff of Customs and Excise who at points of entry—ports and airports—apprehend and mark up major victories against international drug traffickers. I hope that the Minister will take that on hoard. I hope also that he understands that he has the Opposition's complete support for anything that will stop the international drug criminal. I trust that my remarks have demonstrated the fullness of that support.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: It will be with pleasure that I take up one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—I endorse most of his arguments—in my short contribution to the debate.
I welcome the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), to the Government Dispatch Box. I believe that this is his first appearance to talk about the extremely important subject that is before the House. I wish him well in all his efforts on behalf of the Government and of every person living in the United Kingdom.
I have the honour to be chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, which has supported the Government in their efforts, most particularly in the two pieces of major legislation to which reference has already been made—the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which was designed to confiscate illegally gained assets, and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, to allow the seizure of the tools of crime and their disposal following seizure. I welcome the extensions of the Acts to embrace Argentina, Germany, Guyana and Uruguay. I look forward to further amendments to broaden the embrace of the bilateral agreements that we have struck.
That brings me to my first question. Can my hon. Friend the Minister anticipate any further steps in the imminent future to increase the number of bilaterals which have been struck with, for instance, countries which are such important suppliers of the raw materials of drugs that are misused in Britain and reassure the House on their necessity? I immediately think of countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, India and Syria.
Closer to home, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, there are those members of the EC, those signatories of the Vienna convention, with whom we ought to have bilaterals in order to be sure that we can take the steps that we want to take and have them take the steps that they should take on our behalf and on our mutual behalf.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the legislation and the orders which allow the British criminal justice system to enforce requests by those other countries included in the orders are entirely reciprocal? Do those

countries which we are discussing this evening and other countries which have been included in the legislation by previous amendments behave in a reciprocal way? Have they passed the relevant legislation needed so that they can do so? If not, can my hon. Friend reassure the House that they have the process in hand? I am aware that that process is long and drawn out—longer and more drawn out in some of those countries than in Britain.
There is no doubt in anybody's mind, in the House or outside, that vigorous tackling of trafficking in drugs and crime associated with it is a crucial part of the Government's well-directed efforts to meet the growing menace of drug misuse. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, it is, tragically, a growing problem.
The number of addicts has doubled in the past four years. The number of drug offenders under the age of 17 has quadrupled, and that is largely due to amphetamines and cocaine and new drugs such as Ecstasy, which is a class A dangerous drug. There are signs that between one in 10 and one in 25 between the ages of 15 and 30 have used Ecstasy at least once, causing 14 tragic deaths last year.
Like others, I praise the police and customs at home. In addition, a marvellous job is being done by British drugs liaison officers around the world. They particularly deserve our praise because they sometimes operate in extremely dangerous circumstances. I also commend British support for, and for many years leadership of, the Council of Europe Pompidou group. That has been admirable. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to play as vital and vigorous a part in it as his predecessor in the responsibilities that he now holds.
I also want to mention the successful British initiative to establish Europol. Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I rather doubt whether in present or foreseeable circumstances it is wise to consider Europol as an operational entity. But there is no doubt that, as a central source of intelligence, it is excellent and admirable. In the same context, the establishment and operation of the drugs intelligence unit here at home has also been important.
There is a further question that I want to raise, not precisely pertinent to the orders but which I hope I shall be allowed to mention, and that is the question which still remains about the central organisation of anti-drugs police activities in Britain. There is still room for centralised operation and control. So long as that operational unit, built up into a substantial force and divided from other forces, is composed of people seconded from existing police forces rather than building its own recruitment and training, it should be able to overcome the natural worries of chief police officers.
Moneys raised from confiscations make a marvellous contribution to many aspects of the Government's efforts to tackle drug misuse, but there is still a peculiar divide between assets fed in from abroad, which can be used specifically by those fighting against drugs, and those assets which are seized within Britain, which go into the Consolidated Fund.
I plead with the Minister yet again—this point has been made over and over again—to tackle his colleagues in the Treasury to try to obtain specific identification of those funds and channel them back not to the forces which seized them, because that would be indiscriminate, but to all the various efforts not only in trafficking and criminal control, but in treatment, and so on, which so desperately


need extra funds. They should be looked upon as extra funds, not as part of a substitution for funds which the Government already make available.
I commend the Government on what has been achieved and on their continuing efforts. There is still room to do more and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will allow me and other members of the all-party group to keep reminding him about that, not just in tackling trafficking, but in reducing production and improving methods and availability of treatment and, most important of all at the end of the day, in reducing demand.
Britain has given a genuine lead to other countries in the fight against drug misuse and I hope that we shall remain in the lead by ever-expanding efforts which include the measures that we are discussing today.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a pleasure to see many of my hon. Friends present for a debate on a matter which obviously is of concern to the whole House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has taken a particular interest in this subject. He was a member of the Third Standing Committee on 16 May 1990 which debated it. It is good to see that his interest has sustained all these years. No doubt he will make one of his excellent contributions shortly.
I have only three points to make. First, I am concerned about the countries which have been added to the list of countries under the reciprocal arrangement. Many countries are missing and I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can explain why. For example, many of the West Indies are not on the list. I have just come back from Trinidad as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. It admits that it has an increasing drug problem. Why is it not on the list? Why is Barbados not on the list? I know that a Barbados Minister has visited Britain. I cannot see Holland anywhere. Am I wrong? Is it excluded from the reciprocal arrangement? When my hon. Friend replies, will he tell us why some countries are missing, particularly some of the important countries which admit that they have a drug problem?
My second point concerns money. It is right that some of the money should go to defray the costs of the drug enforcement procedures. The rest of the money is lost in the Consolidated Fund and none, as my hon. Friend explained, goes to the many voluntary groups which try to fight drug abuse and the quasi-organisations which the Government fund through other sources. They do not receive any specific money. The Government should specifically identify money coming from drugs and the drug barons and put it back into preventive work rather than just enforcement work or the drug intelligence unit. It would be a useful and constructive step for the Government to ensure that ill-gotten gains were put into preventing drug abuse. My constituency includes part of the English riviera, but I much regret that the drug Ecstasy is readily available there. In fact, parents in Brixham say that their children can obtain Ecstasy cheaper and more easily than a Devon cream tea—and everyone knows how readily available cream teas are in the constituency that I have the privilege to represent.
Not enough preventive work is being undertaken or funded by the Government. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the proceeds derived from drug barons should go towards helping community groups and other voluntary organizations—such as those found in Brixham, where a concerned group of parents are themselves funding a voluntary effort to prevent any growth in the ready availability of Ecstasy. I hope that my hon. Friend can give an assurance that money seized from drug trafficking does not get lost in the bottomless pit of the Consolidated Fund, and that more of it will be used specifically to fund voluntary work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Mr. Malcolm Jack.

Mr. Jack: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rechristening me. I am sure that my parents will be very interested to learn of my new name!
I will do my best to respond to the interesting points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), including his remarks about European co-operation. I believe that they were directed at the European convention on mutual legal assistance, which was covered by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. It was introduced to enhance our ability to extend mutual legal assistance to countries requiring help in the fight against drugs and serious crime. Its powers are different from those provided by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which concentrated on freezing and confiscating proceeds.
The 1990 Act enables people to travel abroad to give evidence, gives powers to take evidence and to obtain documents, and provides for police assistance in respect of powers of search and seizure and in serving court documents.
Good relationships have been established between our law enforcement authorities and those of other European countries, which assists us in our investigations. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Huddersfield placed emphasis on European co-operation. He will be aware of the Council of Europe convention to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. We hope to be in the lead in ratifying that convention, which will provide a comprehen-sive range of powers for dealing with many of the matters that the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned. I hope that it will receive widespread support. Taken together with the Vienna convention and the bilateral arrangements that form the basis of the orders, the Council of Europe convention will represent a comprehensive response.
France is already designated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, so we can co-operate fully with that country in tracing, freezing, and confiscating proceeds. We can also provide a wide range of mutual legal assistance under the 1990 Act. In no way are we leaving France out of the picture.
In responding to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Liechtenstein. I shall try not to stray too far from the substance of the orders. We have powers to investigate financial fraud both in this country and abroad, and they are adequate in respect of Liechtenstein. The 1990 Act enables us to extend a full range of mutual legal assistance. In addition, Department of Trade and Industry investigators have powers of their own under the Financial Services Act 1986. Work can also be undertaken by


Serious Fraud Office investigators under the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Liechtenstein should not present any barrier.

Mr. Sheerman: I mentioned a particular example cited by the Minister's predecessor. When a court case is just beginning, do the authorities have the power to freeze assets in Liechtenstein or Switzerland fast—so that they do not disappear to some other part of the world? My understanding of the convention and of the orders is that they make that possible. However, one reads in the national and international press of concerns that moneys disappear to different destinations before trials are concluded and anyone is sentenced.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's question requires a detailed response, but I will make a general reply. The arrangements contained in the orders will enable us to move very quickly. Once we know that a country wants to exercise its rights, an ex parte application can be made to the High Court to restrain the movement of assets. provided that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting drug trafficking. The whole idea is, as the hon. Gentleman says, to get in quickly. I assure him that such a mechanism exists.

Mr. Sheerman: A press release issued by the Minister's predecessor dated 29 August 1991 said that the convention —which the Minister said is part of the weaponry against the drug trafficker—mentions also the international fraudster. If a drugs or fraud trial commences in this country, will the arrangements that we have with Liechtenstein and Switzerland allow the authorities to freeze the accused's assets now rather than at some time in the future?

Mr. Jack: As I explained, I answered in general terms —but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific arrangements relating to Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Meanwhile, I assure him that speed is of the essence. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer that I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), reported in column 78 of the Official Report for 9 June.

Mr. Steen: Do the arrangements that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in respect of France apply also to Holland? I see no mention of that country in any of the lists.

Mr. Jack: I hope to deal with Holland in a moment. If I do not, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives an answer in due course.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked about our international arrangements in relation to money launder-ing. Our own arrangements—which are clearly internationally based—have been reviewed by the Group of Seven financial action task force, an ad hoc group set up about three years ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will derive some comfort from the fact that a report that we have just received from its examining team concludes that our approach to money laundering is effective and comprehensive, and could serve as a model for other countries. That, surely, is encouraging.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about our approach to crimes other than drug trafficking. The Criminal Justice

Act 1988 empowers us to confiscate the proceeds of serious crimes; those powers can be used on behalf of other countries, subject to the designation procedure.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister mentioned the G7 appraisal. I am sure that everyone knows that our methods are becoming pretty good. The trouble is that an international drug trafficker or fraudster with any sense will no longer put his ill-gotten gains into British banks. Since the dramatic changes that have taken place in the London banking climate, and the enactment of legislation, the international criminal has put his money in other parts of the world. The efficiency of our war against such crimes should be measured not by how good it is in London, but by how good we are at gaining access to other banking capitals. What does G7 say about that?

Mr. Jack: G7 commented on our own problems rather than the problems in other countries to which we have no access. The hon. Gentleman, who plainly understands these matters, will know that at the heart of our ability to counteract money laundering in connection with drugs is the reporting of unusual transactions within our own banking system. I have visited the national criminal intelligence service, and have observed the degree of international co-operation that exists, in terms of both contact and manpower. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a sophisticated and dedicated fight is being waged against those who benefit from the entry of suspicious moneys into the United Kingdom, and that that fight is succeeding.
We are aware that some areas, such as British dependent territories, require upgrading. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that places such as the Caribbean can comply in legislative terms, and that they operate legislation similar to ours.
If the hon. Gentleman had read the terms of the Vienna convention, he would have noted that countries that sign the convention—their number is increasing almost daily —must be able to reciprocate in terms of their own legislation. We must have reciprocal arrangements to confiscate the proceeds of money laundering. Although I would not say that there is a worldwide uniformity of approach, our targeting approach—for example, the process by which we decide whether we wish to go further than the conventions by negotiating bilateral arrange-ments—focuses on the need for workable solutions. This is not a "sloganising" exercise to extol the virtues of our actions; we take the position very seriously, and where there are loopholes to be plugged we try hard to assist the process.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Customs officers. Let me pay tribute to their achievements in regard to the enforcement and seizure record. It is a proud record; theirs is unstinting and dangerous work, and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating them. I was grateful for the tone of what the hon. Gentleman said: he was right to probe, and I assure him that I shall remain vigilant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathhone), who chairs the all-party group on drug misuse, made a telling contribution. I congratulate him on his continuing dedication and interest in the subject; we have met, and I have listened carefully to the views that he has advanced on behalf of the all-party group. As a


long-standing member of the Council of Europe, he will no doubt appreciate some of my comments about wider European legislation and co-operation.
My hon. Friend asked about the policy on increasing the number of bilaterals. We are working hard to identify further countries in this regard, and to find the best way of co-operating. In time, more bilaterals will certainly be announced. We consider them to be very important in operational terms: they help to secure a smooth conclusion to any inquiries that are made, and any prosecutions that have begun, under the terms of the orders. Here I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. When bilaterals are in place we can have good working relationships, which are vital if we are to be quick off the mark.
I agreed with what my hon. Friend said about the Pompidou group, and with what he said about the national criminal intelligence service. As I have seen, serving police officers—as my hon. Friend pointed out, they are sometimes seconded from other forces—are working extremely hard to make the sophisticated fight against drugs succeed. I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations about the use of assets seized in connection with drugs activity will not go unnoticed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that he will be reassured by my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen): good use is being made of the seized-assets fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked about missing countries. I assure him that nations involved in this work are not wandering around the world like Marie Celeste, seeking an opportunity. He specifically mentioned Trinidad. I can tell him that officials from the United Kingdom and the Trinidad Government have been holding detailed discussions about a bilateral agreement; further progress awaits the completion of Trinidad's domestic legislation. I hope very much that bilateral arrangements will soon be in place. As I told my hon. Friend earlier, a good deal of work is going on in the Caribbean to strengthen legislation in the British dependent territories.

Mr. Sheerman: As the Minister will know, I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about missing countries. We need bilateral arrangements with them. But what about the missing Customs officers? The Minister paid tribute to Customs officers, but he did not mention the reduction of 200–10 per cent.—in their number. Where are they now, and will he ask for them to be returned to their jobs?

Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has at least noted the effectiveness of the Customs operation. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Government are putting £500 million into the fight against drugs. We take the matter very seriously, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that we have done our best to equip those engaged in that fight in a way that enables them to carry out their task.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that the number of Customs officers engaged on anti-smuggling operations at Birmingham and Coventry airports has been halved? That undermines his claims about an effective Government response to drug trafficking. It cannot be effective if Government policy does not interrelate with the areas under discussion.

Mr. Jack: I was trying hard to avoid hiding behind the excuse of a Minister at the Dispatch Box for not answering the question, but the hon. Member for Huddersfield has supplied me with the answer: the Home Office is not directly responsible for the Customs service. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) may have studied in some detail the effectiveness of drugs enforcement at the two airports that he mentioned. If he has reservations, I strongly recommend that he writes to the Treasury Minister directly responsible for Customs. In general terms, seizure figures show the overall effectiveness of Customs work. Customs officers would tell the hon. Gentleman that effective Customs work relies heavily on good intelligence sources. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me refer to the national criminal intelligence unit at Scotland Yard and the excellent contribution that it is making.

Mr. Steen: As I represent 88 miles of south Devon coastline, I pay tribute to Customs officers and say how much their work is appreciated. They have seized millions of pounds worth of drugs on yachts that entered ports on the south Devon coast. Although the number of seizures has decreased, the amounts that they have seized have increased. The sophisticated devices that they use show that men are being replaced by machines rather effectively.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of my comments about the effectiveness of the Customs service.
Comment has been made about the use of the seized assets fund. We have spent some of that money on projects to counteract drug misuse. Indeed, 147 projects have benefited from the disbursement of funds. The fight against drugs has been enhanced. Computers have been purchased for Customs, encrypted radios have been purchased for the police and we have funded drug rehabilitation schemes, educational materials, needle disposal projects and fast launches for overseas customs services.
We have tried hard to strengthen the fight against drugs at home and abroad. I urge the House to support the orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1992. which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Members' Interests (Reports)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Given the limited time available for the debate, it would be wrong of me to open it with a long speech going through the recommendations of the two reports in detail. I regret the shortage of time, because the two reports are on separate and distinct issues and contain some complicated proposals. I shall give hon. Members the credit for having read the reports and of being familiar with the main points in question.
I believe that there is now general acceptance in the House of the principle that underlines the need for rules, registration and declaration of Members' financial interests. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Speaker Weatherill rightly said that there is a presumption that all Members are honourable Members. The register is not intended to cast doubt on that presumption; indeed, it is intended to reinforce it.
The House agreed to the introduction of the register in 1974–75 not because it believed that there was a significant problem of corruption among Members, but because of the belief in the need for openness or transparency in a representative democracy. In the absence of that openness, rumour and innuendo can flourish, particularly in the media.
Our behaviour and sense of integrity are important to all hon. Members, but the public perception of Members' interests and behaviour is also important. Nobody enjoys filling in the form and remembering to keep the register up to date, but I am confident that almost all Members now acknowledge the need for these procedures.
The register is a valuable protection for all hon. Members and it provides information that the public and fellow hon. Members have a reasonable right to know.
Against that background, I should like to look first at the larger of the two reports under discussion, which deals with the rules of registration and declaration. The origin of the report was the unhappy case that the House debated in March 1990. At the end of the debate, the House instructed the Select Committee on Members' Interests to review some of the general issues that the case had highlighted. When we conducted the review, we found, above all, that many hon. Members were uncertain what should be registered under the different headings laid down by the original Committee and the House in 1975.
At the same time, we were made aware of the feeling among outside commentators that the register is less informative than it should be and that there is some inconsistency of approach between Members when compiling entries. The Committee's primary objective has been to clarify the rules and to give hon. Members more explicit guidance on the registration of their interests in the future.
Some of the guidance is incorporated in the new and more detailed registration form proposed in annex 1 of the report. More detailed advice is contained in the body of the report. In part, our aim has been to standardise best current practice. I will give one example. One or two hon. Members already include in their entries a brief indication of the business of a company with which they are associated, but many do not. The consequence is that a

Member may register that he is a director of, say, Jones plc, but the reader of the register is no wiser unless he is told what Jones plc does. We propose that it should become standard practice for all hon. Members to include an explanation of that sort in their entries, and our recommendation about the registration of Lloyd's syndicates has a similar objective.
The Committee was concerned to make the rules more precise and thus to assist the Registrar in advising Members on the content of their entries. For example, the Committee proposed that detailed financial limits should be stipulated above which gifts, benefits or hospitality should be registered so that Members should not be obliged to register every trifling courtesy which sometimes comes their way.
There are relatively few proposals in the report which I would regard as substantial modifications of the rules, but I will draw the House's attention to one or two which some may think come into that category. We propose that the leading sponsors of an early-day motion should be required to draw attention to any relevant pecuniary interest by means of a note on the notice paper.
We also propose a change to the rule about the registration of shareholdings. Under the current rules, hon. Members are required to register only shareholdings in excess of 1 per cent. of the issued share capital of a company. The consequence is that substantial holdings in very large companies generally escape registration. The Committee therefore proposes that, in line with proposals made by the Government for local councillors, hon. Members should also be required to register any shareholding which has a nominal value in excess of £25,000. There are also other modest proposals in the report which I shall not itemise because this is a short debate.
As the minutes of our proceedings revealed, we were not able to avoid divisions entirely. Two issues caused us particular difficulty, but the Committee's discussion took place in the run-up to the general election when political tensions in the House were running high. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Committee—I am delighted to see that a considerable number are here tonight—for the constructive and co-operative spirit in which the discussions were conducted despite the distractions.
The first issue to cause us difficulty was the category of the existing form headed "Sponsorship". The 1974 Committee seems to have intended that category to apply only to the institutionalised arrangements whereby trade unions sponsored the candidacies and constituency parties of Labour Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, it did not attempt to define the term "sponsorship". Labour hon. Members now feel, with some justification, that that particular playing field is not entirely level and that there are other forms of regular financial support which are equally worthy of disclosure. The formulation in paragraphs 48 to 51 of the report is a compromise. Like most compromises, it is unlikely to satisfy anyone completely, but it is fair and it is an advance on the present vague heading.
The other issue to provoke disagreement was whether amounts of remuneration should be disclosed in the register. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may wish to pursue that issue later. The correct balance between the need for transparency and the individual's entitlement to a reasonable degree of privacy


is a difficult one to strike. The majority of the Committee saw no advantage in the disclosure of amounts of remuneration. They thought that it was not a reasonable guide to the influence that a financial interest may exert on an hon. Member because a sum that is significant to one hon. Member may be relatively insignificant to another. In any case, we must always bear it in mind that, unlike Ministers or local authority councillors, hon. Members do not have direct executive responsibilities. Therefore, on balance, we considered that the change would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy.
I stress that, although some members of the Committee would have liked certain issues to be included in the report which were not included, there was widespread agreement about what is in the report. Taken as a whole, the proposals represent a distinct step forward, and I hope that the House will support them on that basis.
I deal now with the report relating to Select Committees. Is there any reason why the Chairman and members of Select Committees should be subject to different and more rigorous rules than other hon. Members in respect of their financial interests? There is. We already accept that principle in the case of Ministers. The rules which regulate the financial interests of Ministers are, of course, Government rules rather than House rules, but their existence has served as a reassurance to the House and to the country that Ministers are not able to abuse their positions for personal financial gain.
Unlike Ministers and their Departments, Select Committees do not have powers of executive decision or action, any more than individual hon. Members. However, they perform an increasingly significant role. They have privileged access to information; Committee inquiries are regularly featured on television and individual hon. Members—and especially Committee Chairmen—enjoy a high public profile. I have no criticism of any of those developments—they help the House and do it credit—but, at the same time, they entail a need for particular vigilance to avoid any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived. We consider that a positive code of conduct is now required, as it is, for example, for members of local authorities.
Taken together, the proposals in this report are intended to constitute such a code. That is why we propose that a member of a Select Committee should withdraw from any proceedings where he might reasonably be thought to be in a position to influence any decision from which he or any firm or organisation employing him might obtain a financial benefit. We also propose that anyone elected to the chairmanship of a Department-related Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee should be required to divest himself of any pecuniary interest which might reasonably be thought to influence his judgment or be advantaged by his position as its Chairman.
In matters of that sort, the House has traditionally been content to rely on the good sense and discretion of individual hon. Members. Generally that is good enough, but not invariably. Clear guidance from the House on what is acceptable and unacceptable, where it can sensibly be given, is preferable to the uncertainties of personal judgment. The limited area of Select Committee activity is one where we think guidance can sensibly be given, and that is the purpose of the report.
To conclude, I shall say one or two words about the implementation of the two reports, which primarily lies within the gift of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The debate by itself will settle nothing and will change nothing. The report on Select Committees may be of some value as guidance to the Committee of Selection and others in the weeks and months ahead, but unless the report is positively endorsed by the House, that value will be limited: Select Committee Clerks will not be able to call it in aid when asked for advice or a ruling, nor will the Members' Interests Committee be able to call it in aid if confronted with a complaint.
The same is true of the general report on registration and declaration. The existing rules and form of the register were laid down by a resolution of the House which approved the report of the Willey Committee in the Session of 1974–75. Our new report has no status or validity unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I have listened to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) but, in view of the importance of the report, why is there no resolution before the House so that we can vote at the end of the debate to give the report's recommendations the necessary status and to enact them?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady was a member of the Committee and I am aware of the great contribution that she made to its work. I understand the reasons for her intervention, but her question could be better answered by the Leader of the House.
Although the report has no status unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules, much time and trouble has been devoted to it. I hope that with the positive encouragement of two of the Leader of the House's predecessors, it will prove not to have been wasted work. I welcome the debate as far as it goes—this is my best effort to try to meet the hon. Lady's request—but I should welcome it even more if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were to make it clear that it is no more than a first stage in the process of implementation. These are difficult and sensitive issues and there is every temptation not to face up to them. My right hon. Friend is widely respected by hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that he will not succumb to that temptation, although, as he is new to his present office, I can understand that he may wish to proceed with caution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Leader of the House, I must tell the House that Madam Speaker wishes it to be known that she has appealed for short speeches.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I can respond to some degree to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) just said and to Madam Speaker's appeal. I am glad to have been able to repond to the concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who pressed me for a debate on these matters. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bradford, South


expressed some concern about the length of the debate in some exchanges earlier today. At any rate, we have this opportunity, which is important and valuable.
I am also glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, who opened the debate in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the previous Parliament. The whole House will want to join me in paying a warm tribute to his effort and to the painstaking work that he has put into that role in preparing these and other reports.
As the House understands and as I suggested in business questions last week, the background is in part the anxiety to make progress in setting up the departmental Select Committees for this Parliament. Apart from any other issue, it was sensible to give the House the chance to express its views on the report on the interests of select Committee Chairmen before that process went much further. It clearly is also right to set out consideration of the issues in that report in the wider context of the system for registering and declaring Members' interests as a whole, which is the subject of the other and rather larger report we are debating.
As the purpose of this debate—this comes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden—is to allow for a general expression of views in the House before bringing forward any resolutions that may be appropriate, I hope that the House will feel it right for me to speak early and briefly so that we have the maximum opportunity for the expression of those views.
I make it clear that tonight I am essentially in a listening mode. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden did not think it right to go over every detail of the reports, although for slightly different reasons, I do not propose to attempt to give a firm view from the Dispatch Box on every proposal, which would pre-empt the purpose of the debate.
On the first report, it is right to say that, with regard to improving the system for registering Members' interests, anything that clarifies the working of the register and makes it easier for hon. Members to register their interests in a clear and consistent way is to be welcomed. The new form for registering Members' interests is the most obvious example of that, but I also see much merit in the proposal to invite hon. Members to say briefly what the firms in which they declare an interest are and what they do. Are they, for example, insurance brokers or building surveyors? That will be thought to be sensible by hon. Members of all parties and will be in keeping with the principles underlying the register.
As a minimum, the House will wish to see those proposals carried forward in the shape of resolutions. By saying that, I do not mean to suggest that there are not other aspects of the report—perhaps all of it—which would need to be carried forward in that way. However, I believe that it is right before deciding between the two main options—a resolution, recommended in the report, to implement the whole report and the possibility of a more complex series of resolutions reflecting doubts expessed by some hon. Members about specific recommendations—for us to have this debate. I make it clear—I hope that this will be some encouragement to the hon. Member for Bristol, South—that I have no doubt that the House will wish to see a resolution of one kind or the other.

Ms. Primarolo: Perhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten us. I do not understand why a debate that will have no conclusion has been allowed. Why did the Government not allow those who had reservations to table amendments to the substantive report in the normal way? We could then have had this debate and made some decision at the end of it. Instead, we shall be left with nothing at the end of the debate.

Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Lady's point. Obviously a judgment has to be made case by case in such matters. It is neither unfamiliar in the House nor unreasonable—often it is the most sensible way to proceed—to test the water generally in such matters before coming forward with a set of detailed propositions. I thought that that was the most sensible way in which to proceed in this case.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make some effort to implement the recommendations regarding the setting up of Select Committees, bearing in mind that one report has that specifically in mind? Departmental Select Committees are on the point of being established. Would it not be foolish to have a limited and narrow debate with no conclusion, when, next week or the week after, the Select Committees will be established? The rules, which the Select Committee spent a great deal of time in amending, should be brought into operation before that.

Mr. Newton: I was coming directly to referring generally to the second report on Select Committee Chairmen for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden made an eloquent case. It seems clear, both from some of the comments made subsequent to the report and from some of the comments made by those concerned with Select Committees in their evidence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, that there is the possibility of rather greater controversy on some aspects of those proposals and perhaps an even stronger case for giving the House a general opportunity to express a view before deciding precisely how we should proceed.
I hope, incidentally, that all hon. Members would want to make it clear that, in expressing support for any of the specific proposals, no criticism is intended of Chairmen of Select Committees in the previous Parliament or in earlier Parliaments. I make three comments. First, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden agrees that the objective of his Committee's proposal is not to remedy cases of clear abuse or cases that fall short of the standard to be expected, but rather to make an already impressive system of safeguards through the Register of Members' Interests even safer and even more clearly defensible against adverse public comment in the case of Select Committee Chairmen.
Secondly—I am glad to note the attendance in the House tonight of some of those whom I have in mind—it is right to think that the views of those who have been Chairmen of Select Committees will be of special interest to the House. I look forward to hearing their comments on the report.
Thirdly—I offer this as a tentative thought to the House —there is one question which the House may wish to consider, which was almost hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden in his use of the word "guidelines". We could end up with some extremely complicated resolutions which were difficult to draft and


which, even so, contained vague words such as "reasonable". In light of comments in the report and this debate, might it not therefore be better to consider proceeding by drawing up more formal guidelines—perhaps that could be done by the Liaison Committee—rather than going down the track of having resolutions? I raise that only as a point that should be considered. I do not suggest that I have already reached a conclusion or that others have done so. However, the thought necessarily occurs on reading the report.
I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Bradford, South by saying simply that as we move forward in the appointment of Select Committees for the new Parliament, as I hope that we shall, all those involved will undoubtedly wish to bear in mind both what was said in the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the views expressed in the House tonight.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I begin in a sensible way by ingratiating myself with the audience, having noted that many members of the Select Committee are about. I can say unreservedly that the reports are important and contain some useful recommendations. I hope—from what I heard from the Leader of the House it seems that it is not a hope without expectation of realisation—that formal resolutions will soon be presented to the House so that the recommendations in the report can be implemented.
I should first like to make some comments by way of an overview. I find it pleasing that the ethos of the House seems to have changed since registration of Members' interests was first suggested. When the proposal was first made, it was controversial that registration should happen at all. There is now almost universal agreement compared with when the proposal was first made in 1974. At that time, there was a great deal of debate in central and local government about registration of interests.
I remember one local authority in Bromsgrove, of which I am particularly proud, introducing a voluntary register of interests in 1972, two years before the proposal was first made in the House. I might say that that is not recognised in the Select Committee's report. There was much controversy at that time, but now it is universally acknowledged that we need a register of interests.
It is acknowledged in both of the Select Committees' reports that the register needs to be clarified, to be tougher and to ensure that the integrity of the House and Members of Parliament has respect among the public. That must be of interest to all of us. I welcome the changes in the mood of the House since registration of interests was first debated.
I also welcome the fact that both of the reports repeatedly state that if Members are in doubt they should register. If any Member of Parliament has any doubt about whether to register, or if there is any ambiguity, the onus is on that Member to ensure that the interest is registered.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, more than anything else, the activities of the so-called parliamentary lobbying organisations have made many of us who at the beginning

had doubts about the register realise that there is a need for transparency? Does he agree that we should not lose sight of that as the debate proceeds?

Mr. Grocott: That is an important point. Whatever the reasons for the change, I am glad that the mood of the House has changed and there is universal acceptance of registration.
I begin with the report on Chairmen and members of Select Committees. We can certainly accept unequivocally what the report says. It raises issues which some of us were perhaps surprised to see spelt out. It highlighted the wide variation in practice between Select Committees in what should be declared and what should not. It accepted the need to clarify and tighten the rules. It acknowledged that there was a clear difference between the responsibilities of Chairmen of Select Committees and those of members of Select Committees. That is an important acknowledgement. It was spelt out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) in his evidence to the Select Committee.
The report also stressed the need for resolutions of the House to implement the findings of the report. That ought to be fairly simple now. We have identified a problem, and the Select Committee has come up with the solution and made recommendations on how to implement it. All that remains is to find parliamentary time to make resolutions to implement the report and give it the status that it needs. I urge the Leader of the House rapidly to find a date when that can be done.
The report on Select Committee Chairmen is in a way the easier report. The other report has at its heart the provision of a new form for the registration of Members' interests. I welcome much of the report, but in two or three areas common sense seems to have failed to prevail. As I said, the heart of the report is the new registration form which, by and large, makes things clearer. It is a form which we can commend to the House. I expect that a resolution will be proposed rapidly so that we can have such a form.
I welcome the recommendation that Members should be more specific about the nature of the work that companies do. That seems to be a common-sense suggestion. Moving on to the declaration of interests, it is also highly desirable that early-day motions should be included among the matters in which Members' pecuniary interests need to be declared.
I shall use my remaining time to concentrate on three areas of the report where common sense has not prevailed as it might. First, the report does not acknowledge as it should the huge discrepancy—in the public eye and that of any reasonable observer—between the way in which local government and the House are treated.
I know all the arguments that are rehearsed about local councillors making executive decisions when we do not, but I profoundly dislike the almost patronising manner that the House—or some Members; I hope that many of us are exempt—adopts towards local councillors and what they do. Councillors' work is extremely important and they are rightly subject to stringent regulations. I have no objection to that. However, the public cannot understand why councillors should be strictly regulated when there is a more relaxed regime here.
The distinction between what is and what is not executive power is not easy to sustain. The Chairman of a Select Committee and its members have power and


influence in areas of our national life which put them in a special category—akin to a local authority committee. The Select Committee does not make executive decisions, but it has power, influence and access. Influence and access are power in the same way as making an executive decision is power.
Any member of the public would recognise that Members of Parliament have more potential to exercise their influence than local councillors. We should look more to local government as a model for the way in which interests are recognised and registered. We should be prepared to learn from councillors rather than lecturing them as we so often do.
Secondly, the part of the report dealing with the declaration of the sums of money involved requires examination. The key quote, which I do not think would commend itself to the man on the Clapham omnibus, or the current equivalent, is in paragraph 33. The former Speaker of the House is quoted as saying:
it is the nature of the interest, not the actual sum of money, that is important.
It is not common sense to say that the interest is the significant factor rather than how much it is worth. For example, one could not say that someone who worked full-time on the railways had exactly the same interest in transport as someone who worked for a preservation society on a Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Adley: indicated assent.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) seems to agree. Clearly, it is the degree of interest which is important, and that can be measured only in financial terms.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may wish to note page xxxv of the report on financial interests. When paragraph 33 was debated in Committee, I tabled an amendment proposing that the amount of money received by Members should be declared. That issue was raised in Committee, but unfortunately the amendment was defeated.

Mr. Grocott: I read the Committee proceedings with care and I saw my hon. Friend's amendment and also that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
The Committee is arguing that an ice-cream salesman is the same as someone who runs a multiple food store. It does not make any difference, provided that they are both running something, what part of their total income is represented by income from their business. The Committee does not think that that is of interest to the House, and that is not common sense.
The third matter, to which I shall devote the strength of my feelings, is the Committee's apparent obsession with trade union sponsorship. I am not sponsored by a trade union, but if I were I should certainly be proud of it. No Labour Member is in the least bit embarrassed by, or has any difficulty whatsoever with, sponsorship by a trade union. We are proud of the support that we get from our trade unions. It is clear and distinct that there is no direct financial interest behind a donation to a constituency party by a trade union. It would he proper that that should not be a matter for declaration in the register. However, I am happy that it is and that it has been included, but clearly there must be a level playing field in such matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is another point. I was kicked out of the House because I said that Norman Tebbit was lining his pockets when he became a non-executive director of British Telecom. What about Peter Walker? He had been in the Cabinet but 18 months after he left it he received about 10 directorships. Moreover, would not it have been handy if we had had a register that said, "You must include the amount of money that you have received from companies or other bodies"? In that case, Peter Walker would have had to declare the several hundreds of thousands of pounds that he received from Maxwell for being the chairman of a company for a few short months, the Mercedes car and his £100,000 golden handshake. All that would have been in the register, and it is conceivable that he would have had to walk the plank with Maxwell had that been declared.

Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I read the register of interests—I will be corrected by members of the Select Committee, who have been through all the detailed arguments, if I am wrong—if I as a member of the National Union of Journalists were to receive a regular contribution to my constituency party of £500 a year, which I do not, that would be declared in the register. If another hon. Member received a donation from, for example, a wealthy newspaper proprietor to the constituency party fund of, say, £100,000 in a single year, that would not be subject to the declaration of interests. That is absolutely ludicrous. It defies all common sense.
Although I was not party to all the discussions in the Committee, I suggest that we are talking not about the financial interests of Members of Parliament, but about the financing of political parties. I, for one, would be delighted if a Select Committee inquired into the financing of political parties. I would love to know the details about where the Conservative party receives all its money from. I know that it certainly has much more money '.o spend at a general election than any other party. The figures that I have seen for the 1987 general election show that the Conservative party spent about £9 million and the Labour party spent £4 million, while £1 million was spent by whatever the other lot were called at the time.
There is no doubt that the Conservatives 'lave much more available money, so perhaps we should consider the financing of political parties. That is indirectly related to the interests of hon. Members. It is in all of our interests to get elected, and the way in which we are elected depends, in part at least, on the way in which our political parties are financed.
It is most peculiar that there is an obsessio,, with the way in which financing in local constituencies takes place. There are strict rules over expenditure in individual constituencies and they have been in place since the 1880s, but there is no control or regulation over the national expenditure of political parties. However, we all know perfectly well that we are far more dependent for our position in this place on the national expenditure by political parties than we ever are on what is spent locally in individual constituencies.
It is perfectly legitimate for the Select Committee to consider, not the direct financial interests of hon. Members, but payment to constituency parties ir order to make them function, but it should do it fairly and on the basis of a level playing field. If that consideration needs to be extended into an inquiry as to how political parties are
financed so that we are a little more frank about how that takes place—something that I would welcome—let us do that as well.
To avoid sounding churlish and sour, I assure the House that I have no difficulty with the contents of the report, which I commend to hon. Members. I join my hon. Friends in urging the Leader of the House to accept that the issues involved are important and need to be acted on. There is agreement, at least at a minimal level, about how they should be acted on, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to bring resolutions before the House as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Terrence L. Higgins: I welcome the debate and, for reasons that I shall explain, it is important that it is taking place before the Select Committees are re-established. In that connection, the Leader of the House will understand when I say that that is becoming a matter of the greatest urgency. I gather that many of the problems have been solved, but it would be totally wrong for the House to rise for the summer recess without the Committees having been established, so allowing them to organise their programmes, with the Government being held accountable.
I shall concentrate on the report concerned with Select Committees and their Chairmen, but I wish at the outset to make it clear that in my view it is important for Members to have outside interests, the corollary being that they are fully declared and understood by the House. I therefore welcome the other report and hope that its recommendations will be accepted.
The Select Committee was kind enough to invite me to give evidence as Chairman of the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Liaison Committee. The oral evidence that I and the other Chairmen gave was rather unstructured because the Committee seemed preoccupied with members of Select Committees having a contractual relationship with or doing business with a Department. That is a narrow point which is covered in paragraph 27, and I say no more about it.
I come to what I believe is the right approach for members and chairmen of Select Committees. In that context, it is crucial that members should declare their interests fully and that the Committee should be well aware of the position in that respect. But I agree with those who say that Chairmen of Select Committees are in a different position, so that stronger and more stringent rules should apply to them.
To a considerable extent, a Select Committee's Chairman determines the agenda of that Committee, he has a relationship, if not confrontational, in many respects close to the Department concerned, and he drafts the Chairman's report. That itself is an influential factor because, although it may be amended subsequently, it is rarely totally transformed. So Chairmen are in a special position. But it would be wrong for the House to insist that Chairmen should have no outside interests whatever. That would be to impose on them a penalty that is not imposed on any other Members of the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Select Committee did not say that.

Mr. Higgins: That is right, so I am supporting what the Committee said in that respect. It would, as I think the Committee recognised, deter some able Members from playing the role of Chairmen of Select Committees. It would also inevitably lead to the argument that Chairmen of Select Committees should be paid.
I have long taken the view that the moment I ceased to be the Chairman of a Select Committee, they would be paid. Should they be paid in the future, they must be paid above the level of Minister of State because the duties are very onerous indeed. I would not wish to see Chairmen of Select Committees paid, and I go along with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that they should not be precluded from having outside interests. On the other hand, it would be wrong for them to have interests which were clearly likely to cause conflicts with the business of the Committees of which they were Chairmen.
A problem is that some Select Committees are narrow while others are very broad. For instance, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health should not be a director of a pharmaceutical company, but I see nothing wrong in his being a director of a heavy engineering company. Some Select Committees, such as the Treasury Select Committee, virtually preclude the Chairmen from having outside interests. Chairmen should not hold interests that are in conflict with their duties. By and large, the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests recognise that.
Although it is difficult, we must at this stage consider what is a relevant interest of a Select Committee Chairman. I firmly believe that the right group to judge that is the Select Committee concerned. If full disclosure is made, Select Committee members are in the best position to judge whether a candidate for Chairman has interests which should preclude him from becoming Chairman.
The Select Committee was kind to me in saying that it was particularly attracted by my suggestion that, before a Select Committee first meets, the Committee Clerk should circulate to members a list of interests of the various Committee members. When they first meet to decide who to select as Chairman, they would then know the various interests and could decide whether those should preclude a candidate from becoming Chairman. That is the right approach to adopt.
I doubt whether the proposed resolutions would make much difference. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, they would inevitably involve words like "reasonable", and would not make much difference. I hope that we are on the eve of setting up the Select Committees, so it is important that the procedure that I suggested should proceed. The Committee should know in advance of its first meeting what members' interests are, and should then make the appropriate decision on the Chairman.
If that happens, it seems unnecessary to have the proposed resolutions. The House often proceeds more flexibly and effectively in dealing with such matters if we do not try to spell out matters in closely defined words, but rely on the approach that I suggested. My approach would require far more detailed scrutiny of the real problem than a tightly worded resolution, which would be ineffective or defeat the object of the exercise.
I hope that we can proceed in that way. If we do so, there should be no reason for criticism—there has been little criticism until now—of the position of Chairmen or members of Select Committees.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a very short and unsatisfactory debate, and we have been unable to pick up extra time from the curtailment of earlier debates. The whole debate is limited to one and a half hours, whereas it would have been preferable to have a motion allowing us to finish speaking one and a half hours after 10 o'clock.
The House is extremely indulgent with Select Committee members. The new rules that we recommend on the proposed registration form were meant to make matters absolutely clear. Some hon. Members had difficulties in grappling with the complexity of the registration form, so the House decided that we should have another look at it to make it clear "beyond peradventure", as lawyers say. It allows simple-minded Members of Parliament to get the financial information down so that they are not confused. If it were then discovered that Members had financial interests that they had not declared, they could not make the excuse that they had been confused.
That contrasts starkly with the House's attitude towards people in receipt of unemployment benefit, income support and a range of benefits. We do not give an inch. If those people do not provide the information because of an oversight or for some other reason, we do not say that we will make a new set of forms to make it easier for them. Instead, they are generally prosecuted. That is not good enough, especially when the House often passes statutory instruments to enforce criminal penalties without adequate scrutiny, and often without a vote.
If there was any doubt in anyone's mind, the new rules are a bit clearer. They now require the declaration of information about Lloyd's syndicates. There was quite a discussion on that subject in Committee, a vote was taken and it is now a requirement. That change is important in view of the background to the affair over the past 12 months in which Lloyd's has been rocked by dissension and scandal. Hon. Members have said in the Chamber that Lloyd's insurance market and its chairman are either incompetent or corrupt or both. Those are not my views but I echo them—I happen to share them, but I have not pronounced them. That shows how important it is to have an adequate declaration of interests. The Committee rightly came to that conclusion.
Page 35, paragraph 33, of the Committee's proceedings shows that there was a debate and a vote on the issue of declaring the amount of money that a Member of Parliament receives. It is no good running away from the subject. I and people outside the House believe that the amount of money received by a Member of Parliament reflects the measure of influence received. If a Member of Parliament receives £25 from a mothers' union for expenses, no one will say that his or her vote was influenced by it. But if an hon. Member receives £25,000, people will look askance if that hon. Member's vote benefits the people giving him the money. Everyone recognises that, but no one will say that it is necessary for hon. Members to declare the amount of money that they receive.
There will be pressure from outside the House as soon as a scandal breaks. I and other Committee members—but not a majority—thought that we should not wait for a scandal outside the House to push us into taking action. Before I entered the House in 1974, most hon. Members thought that the system was perfectly adequate. When I was elected, I said that we should have a register of Members' financial interests. Labour Members said to me, "Don't worry, we know the wrong 'uns in here and how to deal with them." That did not last long as the pressure which resulted from the Poulson scandal shoved the House into producing a register to clarify the position, but it did not go far enough.
Following pressure over a period of time, it has become clear that the register should be improved, which could be done by Members declaring their financial interests. The salaries that we receive are enough for us to live adequately. We receive more than most of our constituents and should not need outside interests. People who take the contrary view say that the House would be a dull place if it were full of professional Members of Parliament and would not benefit from the richness of outside interests. That argument is never used to say that people should work outside in mental hospitals for poverty wages, clean out lavatories, work in engineering shops or down mines to enrich their work in the House. The jobs that people say would enrich the House are always those associated with large sums of money. That argument simply is not true. A vast number of people wish to enter the House. Plenty of them are prepared to work here for our basic salary of £30,000 a year plus office expenses. We should not have to depend on outside sources. People would respect this place far more if we did not do so.
The recommendations of the Committee do not meet all my requirements, but I am prepared to support them because they represent an improvement—they are a step in the right direction. I hope that there will be more public pressure to ensure that financial receipts are recorded. Things have come to a pretty pass when the following story can take place. A public relations representative came before the Select Committee on Members' Interests knowing that he had been paying thousands of pounds to Members of this House for introducing work to his company. The money was paid as a commission, but it was never declared and the matter came to light by chance. That individual told the Committee, supposedly the High Court of Parliament and duly appointed by this House to make a report, that he would not tell us how much money he had paid to Members. This is not good enough; the House must tackle the problem and agree to a Standing Order which requires Members to declare their financial interests.
The report on the Chairmen of Select Committees was embarked on as a result of a complaint by a Select Committee about an apparent conflict of interest. The press did not present those involved as having behaved decently, honourably or nobly. The press reports said that the Chairman of a Select Committee was involved in a conflict of interest that he had failed to declare. That Committee took up the matter and wrote to the Select Committee on Members' Interests asking for an investigation. Pressure from outside was brought to bear as well.
Our Committee recommends that resolutions be laid by the Leader of the House obliging a Member elected to be Chairman of a departmentally-related Committee or of the Public Accounts Committee to ensure
that he or she owns no financial interest in conflict with his or her duty to the committee and to the House. We further recommend that Standing Order No. 128 be amended to enable your Committee to consider any complaint based on non-compliance with that resolution.
This sort of work is not very attractive but someone has to do it. It is downright distasteful to deal with complaints of this nature, but we had to look into the complaint by the Defence Select Committee. The Leader of the House should let us know whether he intends to table the necessary amendments to change Standing Orders.
We further said:
We consider it … advisable, in the public interest, for the Chairmen of departmentally-related select committees and any chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to divest themselves of any direct personal pecuniary interest or benefit which might reasonably be thought to influence their judgment; or from which the Chairman might reasonably be thought to benefit directly from his or her position as Chairman. And we recommend that the House should place this requirement upon the Chairman of these committees by a further resolution.
An hour and a half is not long. These resolutions should be included on the Order Paper before the summer recess so as to ensure that we can vote on them and put them into action immediately, thereby avoiding future conflicts of interest in our Select Committees of the sort that arose in the story that I have outlined.

Mr. Robert Adley: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—I hope that I can do so on behalf of all hon. Members—for his unfailing courtesy, patience and tolerance with all of us who participated from time to time in the Committee's deliberations. He did not have an easy job, but he always bent over backwards, if any of us were late, to ensure that we were not left behind because we had missed the Committee's earlier discussions.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) talked about obsessions, and referred to the Committee's obsession with trade union matters. I do not propose to discuss that. I think that one of the obsessions of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that this place is full of corrupt or neo-corrupt individuals. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe either that that opinion is held by more than a tiny number of people outside the House. The press has done a great deal to generate interest in some activities and I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who made the point that during his weekend surgeries in his constituency he is not constantly invaded by people coming to complain about the corrupt activities of hon. Members.

Mr. Cryer: I shall intervene only briefly because the hon. Gentleman referred to me. I did not make such a comment nor imply that. I say only that I think that people outside the House are entitled to make a judgment. I think also that the declaration would raise the standing of this place, not diminish it.

Mr. Adley: I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point.
I wish to take up two matters with which the Committee tried to deal during its deliberations. I categorise the first as transparency and the second as the perversion of the House. It is important that we should do everything that we can to ensure that there is transparency, so that there is every opportunity for people inside the House and outside to know to whom they are talking and from whom they are receiving telephone calls and correspondence.
No mention has been made this evening of the register of the interests of Members' secretaries and of their research assistants, which I use as an example. It is a fascinating document. Virtually all the major public relations and parliamentary consultancy companies in the country have someone in the House working for a Member. I suggest that those of my colleagues who have not read the register would be well advised to do so.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, the House is a funny place. We pass laws and tell everyone in the country to improve his or her methods of trading and methods of business and, indeed, to improve everything that he or she does, but the amount of training, assistance, advice and guidance that is given to new Members when they enter the House is virtually nil, particularly on the subjects that we are now discussing.
During the 22 years that I have been in the House, the activities of lobbying companies have transformed its affairs in many ways. It would have been unnecessary and, I think, unthinkable 22 years ago to have to refer to the pressures that Members might face from commercial and professional lobbying organisations outwith the House. That is no longer the position. I think that one of our recommendations in due course will be that new Members should be made aware of the pressures that they might face from lobbying organisations and, for example, from polling organisations. Long ago, I stopped taking telephone calls from polling organisations, but they are being made all the time. I am sure that new Members will be asked whether they can spare half an hour or an hour for one of these organisations, which will charge their clients huge fees based on the time that they have extracted, as it were, from hon. Members. It is right that people should know about these things. New Members should be made aware of the pressures that will be brought to bear on them, which they now accept whereas we never did.
I shall refer briefly to some of the comments that are contained in the report. I shall not quote at length because time is short but merely quote one or two paragraphs. First, I turn to paragraph 58, which is headed:
Visits and benefits for Members' staff".
How many of us in the Chamber know how many times our secretaries and research assistants are contacted by commercial lobbying organisations? The paragraph refers to visits and benefits for our staff, but do any of us really know what pressures some of those who work long and hard for us are under from some of the professional lobbying organisations? It might be worth while for new Members especially to ask their secretaries or research assistants what approaches they have received from some of those organisations.
I do not always agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but he has some original ideas on


the subject. He gave ample evidence to the Committee. I refer hon. Members to two sentences that appear on page 28. They are as follows:
The whole business world that has grown up around influencing Members of Parliament is staggering. I throw away 95 per cent. by weight of my mail every day, all of which is paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is a legitimate business expense to send annual reports to hon. Members. The Palace of Westminster is crowded with lobbyists.
Many of us know that that is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), giving evidence to the Committee which appears at page 52, refers to his mailbag. He said:
I am very aware from my own mailbag and the high and growing proportion of the letters and communications I receive which are generated quite obviously from lobby groups of one kind or another.
Many of them are entirely legitimate, but they are part of the pressure that is applied to Members about which we should know more.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) —I am not sure whether he is still chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—referred at page 63 to the grey area of
PR companies where you do not know who they are actually representing.
There is a clear area for a lead for more transparency.
I commend to those of my colleagues who have not read it the final paragraph on page 83 of Professor Norton's memorandum as an example of the pressures that we are up against.
We have done our best to provide the House with a little guidance. I do not know whether we have done a perfect job, but I echo the views expressed already to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We hope that in due course he will come forward with some proposals which result in the House being able to take action.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I spent nine years as a member of the Select Committee and I have spent the past six years angling for the inquiry that has now taken place into registration and declaration.
I have always believed that the rules were deficient. I do not believe that the House is full of corrupt people, but I do believe that there are people in the House who abuse the House. They abuse our procedures and they have to be restrained.
I want to start by referring to a resolution carried on 22 June 1858. It might be for the House to reflect on whether we fulfil the terms of that resoluton some 140 years later. That resolution says:
That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House, any proceedings or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.
That resolution has been breached on perhaps thousands of occasions during the past century—most recently over Lloyd's, where we know that Members have made statements in the House of Commons when they knew that a pecuniary fee or reward was a consideration arising from their interventions.
We raised a number of issues in the report which, in the main, deals with the problems that concern me, but there are one or two areas where we have not satisfactorily dealt with the problems. One of them is on the question of

spouses' interests. In Committee, when discussing spouses' interests, we used to refer to what I called the Shirley Porter amendment. That referred to the unlikely scenario where I, the Member of Parliament for Workington, was married to Lady Porter. The question that I put repeatedly to the Committee was whether her shareholdings in Tesco might reasonably be thought by others to influence my actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. My view is that, in the unlikely event of my being married to Lady Porter, those shareholdings would be an influence on my judgments, and that I would have to declare them. The moment one goes down that route, spouse interest must be taken into account by the House of Commons—insofar as in many circumstances, due to the very nature of marriage, they are inseparable from the interest of the Member of Parliament concerned.
Gifts and hospitality are another aspect that cause me concern. The offer of visits abroad, tickets and hospitality abroad by outside organisations is widespread. I know to my certain knowledge of innumerable examples in this place where tickets and hospitality have neither been registered nor declared. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that to be true. I hope that the way in which the form has been rephrased will catch people out who previously thought that they should not reveal to Parliament or to the public that their visits abroad—often for the most legitimate reasons—were paid for by outside organisations.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to sponsorship, which historically has been a debate about trade unions. Following the 1974 resolution of the House, Hastings agreements on trade union sponsorship were always registered and declared. I have argued repeatedly in the Committee that other forms of sponsorship exist. I refer to sponsorship by companies, where the benefit is equally indirect—being conferred not on the Member of Parliament but on his constituency party or association; professional bodies; partnerships; and industrial organisations, to which I shall refer later.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for a level playing field, but I believe that one does not exist in the application of the rules—and has not done so since 1974, with the exception of two Conservative Members who registered sponsorship of their Conservative associations by companies.
I draw the attention of the House to examples of company sponsorship. Stanley Kalms of Dixons paid £100,000 to local Conservative associations and to Conservative Central Office. None of that money was ever declared or registered by Conservative Members in the register, on the Floor of the House, or in Committee. Meanwhile, Labour Members are declaring and register-ing trade union sponsorship to the value of £600.

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like to do so, but the time is 9.48 pm, and there are only 15 minutes left for this debate.
Tony Clegg, a business man, paid £20,000 to local and national Conservataive associations; and the constituency association of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) received a lump sum of


£10,000 from Wallace Mercer, a property developer in Scotland whose company is named Dunedin Properties. I believe that he is also a director of the Hearts football club.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is an honourable man, and I do not question his integrity; but does he think it fair that a trade union-sponsored Member of Parliament receiving £600 a year for his constituency association should have to register and declare that money, while the hon. Gentleman's constituency association is not required to do so, although the implications in terms of influence are exactly the same?
In 1989, and again in 1990, the Boddington group of companies, which specialises in health care, paid £5,000 to Conservative associations. I submit that the payment of those moneys is indistinguishable from the payment of moneys by trade unions to constituency parties; both benefit the hon. Members concerned.
The Vaux group paid £12,000 to, I believe, an industrial council, which then passed it on to Conservative constituency associations. During one inquiry, I produced the accounts of a company called Hall and Woodhouse Brewers, which contributed to Conservative associations in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. The people who worked in the plant were members of the Transport and General Workers Union. Hon. Members sponsored by that union were declaring and registering the £600 per annum that was paid to their constituency parties, while the constituency associations that received moneys in those four years were not required to declare the receipt of the moneys through the hon. Members concerned, or to register it in the House of Commons.
British United Industrialists also pays money to constituency associations. In a single year-–1989–16 companies paid £186,000 to local Conservative associations, and industrial councils paid £169,000 to such associations. That money came from 14 companies.
I am merely arguing for a level playing field. If moneys are going from companies, at local level, directly to constituency associations—exerting exactly the same influence as trade union sponsorship on the operation of those associations—why should hon. Members who receive £600 a year from unions have to register it?
I am sorry if I have been provocative. As members of the Committee know, I have supported many proposals and amendments from Conservative Members, but I believe that we have not dealt with some issues properly. Let me quote from some documents from Conservative Central Office. A note from the North West Industrial Council reads as follows:
I know that some to whom I am writing have said that they arc unable to send company donations for one reason or another. In such cases, it would be very much appreciated if your Directors who are Conservative supporters would kindly send a joint or individual personal contribution. When considering this request, I am sure the significant reductions in personal taxation by the Conservative administration—and the well-publicised intentions of Labour to increase top marginal rates"—
that is all nonsense, by the way—
will be borne in mind.
Another document explains
how to make your donation".
We are not talking about tenners and fivers. The document states:
Please tick the appropriate box below and fill in details of your name and address".

Donations of £200, £250, £500 or £1,000 are requested from business men for Conservative associations—sums far in excess of the money paid to the majority of Labour constituencies under the Hastings agreement. We know that such contributions are often made.
I have a document from the Conservative and Unionist party treasurer's department. It says:
We are always grateful for any amount received, but in view of the high cost of running the Party Organisation these days, we hope that as many corporate donations as possible will be in the four figure bracket or at least in the hundreds from smaller concerns … Cheques should kindly be made in favour of either the 'North West Industrial Council' or
to the Conservative party. I do not object to the principle of registration or declaration, so long as there is an equal obligation on Conservative Members to register and declare. Tens of thousands of businesses and business men pay sums to Conservative associations far in excess of the £600 that constituency parties receive annually under the Hastings agreement.
I refer Conservative Members to what the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) admitted during a "World in Action" interview. I have the transcript. On the question of influence, he said:
One representative of a brewer made it clear to me in oblique terms that if I didn't back the brewers in what they were saying, then of course, perhaps, some money might be withdrawn from the Conservative Party".
In other words, he was saying that pressure can be brought to bear, yet Conservative Members persist in arguing that the register is necessary because of unions' ability to influence Labour Members. There is an admission of influence, made by a Conservative Member on a national programme.
Finally, I draw an analogy between an industrial council and an industrial union. If an industrial union sponsors a constituency party, it pays £600 a year which is used to run the constituency party.

Dame Peggy Fenner: It sponsors a Member.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: But the money goes to the constituency party; the Member sees none of it.
That industrial union is, in effect, a combine—a combination of members who have an objective: to pay moneys to a constituency Labour party. That is what they believe in. An industrial council is a combine. It has members just like trade unions and they collectively put their funds together and pay them in one sum to a constituency association because, again, they want to give their money to the Conservative party. What is the difference? I am able to identify the difference. An industrial council combine does not have to register or declare, but an industrial union combine must do so. Yet they can pay exactly the same sum of money annually.
I believe that that is unreasonable. The great majority of people in this country will agree with me. If it were possible to televise our proceedings tonight, the noise that has come from the Conservative Benches during my speech would show the public who is right. I am right, and they know that I am right. They know that there is an inconsistency and that we are right to argue for a level playing field.

Mr. John Bowls: The debate is about influence. We have just heard a speech which underlines the fact that if money is given to a Labour hon. Member,


influence is bought whereas if money is given to a Conservative party association, there is no influence bought because there are no votes bought in the Conservative party by any contribution.
The question of influence is important and relates to what has been said by my former colleagues on the Select Committee about declaring amounts. Certainly when I was a member of that Committee, there was an interesting debate, which I am sure has continued since, about the extent to which the money received by an individual hon. Member could influence him. Perhaps inadvertently, but fairly, members of Labour's Front Bench made the point that the extent to which a donation may influence an hon. Members's actions depends on his or her financial standing. There might have been a case for suggesting that a declaration should be made if the money received was above a certain proportion of total income, but that case was not made in Committee and has not been made tonight, so it is a matter for another day.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his chairing of the Committee and on the recommendations made to the House, and I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his reception of them. I look forward to steady progress on these issues and on the recommendations made by the Select Committee of which I was a member. They will enhance the standing of the House and reassure the members of the public who are watching the debate that the overwhelming majority of Members are honourable Members and that they try to look after their constituents' interests and put aside any other pressures that may he placed on them by outside bodies. In that spirit, we should welcome the report and the results that will flow from it.

10 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The debate certainly shows the weakness of the Select Committee system because, once again, sloppy consensus is at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he and other Labour Members of Parliament tried to move some resolutions, but they were flattened. They wanted to ensure that the money received by hon.
Members who had directorships and who made money in the law courts was mentioned in the register, but they got done. Sloppy consensus prevailed.
We are not talking about the real issues because the fact that some hon. Members get directorships means that they are away from the House. Under the previous Government, 200 or so Tory Members of Parliament had directorships, consultancies and God knows what else, which is why we meet here at half-past two in the afternoon. They had 500 or so directorships between them, and there is a pairing system in the House so that Tory hon. Members can make money outside—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order 19 June].

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the remaining motions together.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS

Ordered,

That Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. David Lightbown, Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Ray Powell and Sir Donald Thompson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Madcl, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mrs. Marion Roe and Mr. William Ross be members of the Administration Committee.

CATERING

Ordered,

That Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. John Townend be members of the Catering Committee.

INFORMATION

Ordered,

That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gary Waller be members of the Information Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selction.]

Heathrow

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter which may not be as interesting as the item which we were just discussing but which is important to me and my constituents. It relates to the future development of Heathrow airport.
In case anyone does not know or is interested to know, I shall give some facts about the world's busiest international airport. It employs 50,000 people directly and about 20,000 indirectly. It handles more than 50 million passengers each year and about 380,000 aircraft movements a year. It uses two runways, running from east to west. That compares with Gatwick, with one runway, and Stansted, with one runway. Heathrow has four terminals to go with the two runways. Two runways for one terminal is the usual basis.
Some 72 per cent. of Heathrow lies within my constituency, including terminals 1, 2 and 3, and part of terminal 4. All of the proposed terminal 5 will lie within my constituency. With the recommendations from the local government boundary commission still to be enacted, I anticipate having the whole of Heathrow in my constituency, perhaps by the end of the year.
Increasing demand has led to expansion and there has been an increased contribution to the national and local economy from Heathrow. Expansion has led also to increases in noise, pollution, traffic congestion and environmental damage. There must be a balance between the development of Heathrow airport and the lives and livelihood of my constituents.
The development of the terminals came about primarily because demand in the 1970s led to proposals for terminal 4. That terminal came into being in the mid-1980s. At the public inquiry, there were suggestions that when terminal 4 came on line, Heathrow would be at maximum capacity. During the inquiry, it was said clearly in several quarters that there would be no need for a fifth terminal. Indeed, during the passage of the Airports Act 1986—I was a member of the Standing Committee, which sat for more than 100 hours, throughout its deliberations—the information coming to us from the British Airports Authority was that it wanted Stansted to be expanded. BAA believed that the future development of airports and airport capacity in the south-east would lie primarily at Stansted. At that time, BAA was not readily interested in the development of Heathrow and certainly was not interested in a fifth terminal.
Interestingly, when the Bill became law, one of the first things that BAA did, within days of the enactment, was to advocate the coming on to line of a fifth terminal. The application for terminal 5 went against the views of the inquiry and against the case made for the development of Stansted. We should also bear in mind that Stansted now handles about 1.8 million passengers and that it can take many millions more before it is anywhere near maximum capacity. It has one runway at present.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether my constituents can now believe any of the information they are getting about the development of terminal 5 and about the implications that flow from it. Several questions need answering. Should there be improvement in the

infrastructure and surface access to Heathrow before terminal 5 is developed? Should there be a complete ban on night flights? Should restrictions be placed on the type of aircraft allowed into Heathrow because of noise? Should aircraft movements be restricted by reducing some domestic flights? Should a third runway at Heathrow be ruled out for all time?
The response that my constituents want to hear—I support them in that wish—is as follows. There needs to be a vast improvement in the infrastructure and surface access to the four terminals already in place at the airport. Traffic congestion in and around the airport is not good at the best of times and can be almost unbearable at peak hours. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what occurred on a Friday afternoon just a few weeks ago. Because of a burst of sunshine, the motorway began to break up between junctions 3 and 4 in my constituency—junction 4, of course, leads directly into the terminal—and there was chaos right back to Cromwell road because of that. I am convinced that many people missed their flight or that flights were delayed to ensure that passengers could get to the airport in time. The surface access available now and the infrastructure do not provide an adequate means by which to get to the airport with just four terminals. God help us if there is a fifth terminal without a massive increase in infrastructure and surface access.
There must he a ban on all night flights and on the use of engine test-beds at night at the airport. The number of night flights is small—between 5,500 and 6,000—in relation to the total number of flights, which is 380,000 a year in and out of Heathrow. However, they cause a great deal of disturbance and a ban would be welcomed by most people living nearby. I am told by British Airways that it needs the night flights because aeroplanes may get a following wind and arrive early. I know of no aeroplane which does not have brakes of some kind to slow it down. So it is beyond me to understand why they have to fly in at 5 am.
I am told by the same people that night flights are necessary because of time changes. I know of no airline that is aware of time changes and cannot fly in at normal times. The airlines' argument is really that they must have night flights to cope with their arrangements with other international airlines. But if one aircraft came in from the far east—say, Japan—and was re-directed because it came in too early, an airline would soon learn its lesson and realise that flights could not come in early. It would be aware of the implications of coming in early if we took that position.
There should also be restrictions on the type of aircraft that fly into Heathrow. Only modern aircraft with much reduced noise levels should be allowed to fly into the airport. Airlines should he made aware of their responsibilities on noise. They should not expect concessions to be made, whatever the technical and financial reasons. It is no good airlines saying, "We are doing our best to have quieter aeroplanes. They are just around the corner." That does not help the person who is kept awake by noisy aeroplanes tonight. tomorrow night and the night after that. Airlines have to learn that if they want access to the world's busiest international airport, they must take some action on noise levels. They are making some progress on noise, but I do not believe that it is enough.
There is an even stronger case for restricting aircraft movements at Heathrow. General aviation should be


banned altogether and some domestic services should be severely cut. We should reduce the approximately 90,000 domestic flights by at least half. I see no justification—I am sure that colleagues will disagree—for flights carrying only 18 people flying from Plymouth to the world's busiest international airport. Often an aeroplane carries only 18 people. I am told that there are interlining implications. Only 1.8 persons on average are likely to take another aeroplane at Heathrow to fly elsewhere.
Nor do I see the justification for flights from East Midlands airport to Heathrow. It is almost quicker to go by road. Although airports such as Leeds-Bradford are important locally, why should passengers believe that they have a God-given right to fly into the world's busiest international airport from there? Not only is it nonsense, but it affects the movement of aircraft. Such flights take not a slot but a slot and a bit when they come into Heathrow because of the vortex. Fewer aircraft move because of the nonsense of smaller aeroplanes coming into that airport.
Of course, I accept that we must have domestic flights from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Newcastle to Heathrow, but there must be a limit to the number of domestic flights that we allow to come into Heathrow. If we controlled those flights, 40,000 to 45,000 more movements would be available for larger international aircraft; or, if we did not want to increase the number of international flights, we could reduce the number of movements by that figure.
I am told that it is not fair to reduce the number of domestic flights to Heathrow and that a reduction would affect local economies. I simply do not believe it. We must take tough action if we are to ensure that Heathrow maintains its international position.
The point which I want to make more forcefully than all the others together is that the Government should state now loudly and clearly, for the benefit of my constituents who have been used and abused and tossed aside by the Labour party, that there will be no third runway. The Labour party worked up that fear in people's minds. I condemn my local Labour party and the local Labour candidate. They had people in fear ringing me up saying, "Mr. Dicks, if you win the election, the villages of Harlington and Sipson will he knocked down. I shall be homeless next week because your Government will have a Cabinet meeting to agree on a third runway". That campaign was pursued throughout the election. It was an appalling way to behave.
It is not true that there is to be a third runway. But I should like the Government to say clearly that there is no possibility whatever of a third runway at Heathrow today, tomorrow or at any time in the future. They must say that clearly because that is the only way in which we can kill the nasty rumour which is upsetting and affecting many of my constituents.
Those who seek more aircraft movements, more night flights, additional runway capacity and a fifth terminal at Heathrow must realise that Heathrow exists within the wider local community. My constituents' interests need to be protected when the expansion of Heathrow is considered. I look to the Government to support me in protecting those interests. I am aware of the Government's responsibility for the wider implications for the national economy and the economics of aviation. They must be aware also that people living in and around Heathrow are

worried about the continual expansion of the airport. They question the limit of the expansion. They ask what will happen next and about the blight to their properties.
BAA and the major airlines consider aviation first, last and always, but they must take off their blinkers and get away from their tunnel vision. If they want the international airport to continue to operate, they must consider how to go about it and bear in mind the impact on local residents. They must also bear in mind that it is nonsense that there can be no second runway at Gatwick because of a planning guarantee given years ago. That is stupid. Gatwick is the second largest international airport and it has one runway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) shook his head earlier in my speech. Stansted has one runway, which is vastly underused. One can walk into that airport and see three men and a dog waiting for an aeroplane—the rest is just empty space. We must encourage people to think about using Stansted rather than Heathrow. I am the last person in the world to support direction. I am happy to let the market decide, but one must not skew the market to encourage more people to go to Heathrow. The idea of a fifth terminal at Heathrow without the conditions which I have laid down is nonsense. The idea of a third runway is nonsense and will skew the market to encourage more people to fly from Heathrow and stop them from having to go to Stansted. Stansted airport has good infrastructure and an adequate rail service. Gatwick also has a good rail service and could be developed with a second runway.
I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the fact that Heathrow is almost at its peak. Expansion must be considered in the context of the national economy and of local constituents. Please, will my hon. Friend consider two of the five conditions which I laid down which are of overriding importance? First, will he consider imposing a complete ban on night flights? The number is so small that it does not matter to the airlines and the airport. Secondly, will he tell us now, if possible, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow in the foreseeable future? I appreciate that he cannot say, "Never".

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on securing this debate on an important subject. We came to the House on the same day in 1983 and he has managed to stay here ever since. I rested for a while—as we actors say. It is a great pleasure to rejoin him again.
My hon. Friend is well known for the way that he has constantly fought to protect the interests of his constituents around Heathrow. He has expressed admirable concern for the affairs of Heathrow and various aspects of it that impact on the lives of his constituents.
I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is in his place. He also has a constituency interest, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has been a frequent contributor to debates on this subject.

Mr. Toby Jessel: While thanking my hon. Friend for what he has said, I emphasise that aircraft noise is a curse and a pestilence which ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens. The number of flights every day from Heathrow is now more than 1,000


—one every couple of minutes—and hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow do not want the noise to be contained; they want a substantial and permanent reduction in it. They do not want a fifth terminal. We stopped it in 1985 and we mean to stop it again.

Mr. Norris: I shall touch on that matter. I am still pleased to see my hon. Friend here this evening, and I am glad that he was able to make his inimitable contribution to our proceedings.
I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) here. He is not merely the Whip on duty but is well known as one of the few Members who can officially say that he has a night flying rating. Perhaps he joined us for that reason, but none the less he is most welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall), whose interest in aviation matters is well known, is also present. I also appreciate the support of my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), whose keen interest in matters avionic is also extremely well known. The extraordinarily packed House that attends the debate is evidence of the fact that the subject of it is serious and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has raised some serious points.
Perhaps I may supply some of the background to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is right—Heathrow represents a vital national and local asset. It is Europe's busiest airport, the world's busiest international airport and a major employer locally. It is a key gateway into this country for passengers and air cargo alike and many of my hon. Friend's constituents, as he knows, will be numbered among the 50,000 people who work at Heathrow, either for the airport company itself or for one of the many other businesses there. Of course, many other jobs are generated by Heathrow indirectly.
The subject is important, too, because of the impact that Heathrow has on the lives of those living and working within its orbit. There is no denying that major airports are generally awkward neighbours. It is right that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members with constituency interests should bring to BAA, to Ministers and to the House the concerns of their constituents and that we should address them properly.
My hon. Friend has referred to the announcement by BAA last month that it was opening consultations with local authorities with a view to bringing forward a planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow towards the end of the year. The forecasts suggest that the demand for air travel will continue to grow, and that by the end of the decade perhaps twice as many passengers will want to travel through the London airports as do so today. Against that background, it is clearly right that the aviation industry should address itself to how that demand from consumers might be met.
I naturally welcome the fact that, before seeking to finalise its planning application, BAA is to carry out extensive consultation with local authorities on the option that it sees as the most appropriate to pursue. I know that the airport is also going to considerable lengths to make those living nearby aware of its proposal, through leaflets and a telephone information line. All hon. Members will welcome that because it is vitally important that

constituents understand what is being proposed, and that their concerns and comments are not formed on the basis of half truths and half remembered statements and facts.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is it not true that a lot of people living around airports, particularly Heathrow, work at them and that they are fully aware that if that airport reduced its capacity, they might well be out of a job?

Mr. Norris: The importance of Heathrow to the local community cannot be over-emphasised. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people who will be affected by the airport's activities as residents are also employed by it. That is a simple matter of fact.

Mr. Jessel: Not all of them work at the airport.

Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham says, many of them are not employed in the airport. As ever, he is right.
I wish to consider how BAA is approaching the application. It is entirely right that it should seek to ensure that information is available to those who are concerned about the development of the airport so that they discuss the issue on the basis of the facts and not on suppositions. Let us be in no doubt, the fifth terminal is a significant development. BAA is right to keep its neighbours in touch with its thinking.
I stress that, if and when a planning application is submitted, there is the possibility of it coming for ultimate decision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, acting in concert with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. For that reason, my hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member, will appreciate that I am constrained in what I might say tonight about such a project and he will understand the position that I and my right hon. Friend are in. But I can say that there is no pre-judgment of the matter on the part of the Government. Any application for a fifth terminal, in whatever form it is proposed, will need to be considered on the merits of that specific proposal, and everyone with views will have the opportunity to put them forward.
My hon. Friend referred to the implications of a fifth terminal for night noise at Heathrow, and the general question of noise was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham in his intervention. BAA explained, in the material accompanying its announce-ment, that its proposal would not require any increase in night flights. But my hon. Friend wants to go further than that: he wants to see any further terminal development made conditional on a complete ban on movements at night.
Because one might reasonably expect aircraft noise to be a subject addressed in the context of a planning application for terminal 5, and because, as I say, my right hon. Friend will, in effect, be acting in a quasi judicial capacity in due course when he comes to consider the application, I will not comment tonight on my hon. Friend's proposal. But I tell him and the House, in the context of aircraft noise, which I recognise is a particular concern to many of those living around busy airports, that, happily, modern jet aircraft are considerably quieter than their predecessors. Their development has brought substantial benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, the figures are striking. Between 1978 and 1989, there was a reduction


of almost 70 per cent. in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise around Heathrow, despite the increase in activity. Arrangements which have now been agreed to phase out so-called "Chapter Two" aircraft will bring further benefits.
As ever in such matters, one must strike a balance between the interests of those wishing to fly and of those living and working around airports. As my hon. Friend implied, that balance is not necessarily easy to find. It should not be assumed, for example, that night movements are simply movements that cannot be squeezed into the daytime. He was right on some points, but a night departure or arrival may be dictated by where the aircraft is flying to or from, and other night movements will be carrying time-sensitive goods such as newspapers, mail and perishable items.
Responsibility for the regulation of noise at Heathrow, as at other BAA London airports, rests with the Government, and we have sought to strike a reasonable balance in the night noise restrictions now in place at the airport. Hon. Members will know that that regime is due for review in the autumn of this year, and we shall be consulting widely in framing the new arrangements.
My hon. Friend also spoke of a fifth Heathrow terminal in relation to a possible third runway. I am grateful tor this opportunity to comment on that because I know that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the relationship between the two propositions. There need not be such misunderstanding because, in the material that it has made available about its proposal, BAA has emphasised that the terminal would not require a third runway. Indeed, the notion of a fifth terminal at Heathrow has been a matter for debate for many years, not least in the House, without any suggestion attaching to it that it implied the need for further runway capacity.
I believe that the confusion has arisen because a third Heathrow runway was one of 10 options for meeting long-term demand identified by the Civil Aviation Authority as looking feasible in air traffic control terms when the authority advised the Government in 1990 on our future runway capacity needs. As such, it is one of the notional developments being addressed by the working group, chaired by my Department, which is taking forward and broadening the CAA's advice. That group, which has a working assumption that existing runway capacity will need to have been substantially exhausted before new capacity is justified, is looking well ahead. It is not concerned with airport development to serve existing runways.
The working group will offer advice in due course on the implications of providing additional runway capacity at the various locations. There are those who argue that the benefits of additional capacity, to users and to United Kingdom industry generally, would be greatest if it were provided at Heathrow. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware of those arguments. But the Government are conscious, too, of the strength of view in some quarters that a third Heathrow runway should not be built, for reasons of environmental impact, pressure on infrastructure, or aircraft noise.
Clearly all the factors have to be assessed. I think that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will accept that the Government cannot simply ignore the advice that they have from the CAA on future need, nor the identification by the authority of a number of possible locations for additional capacity. It is right that the implications of developing capacity at each of those various locations should be looked at, dispassionately and without commitment, so that a properly informed view can be taken.
Heathrow local interests are involved in the work of the group, both directly through the representation of the local authorities via SERPLAN, through the Heathrow airport consultative committee, and through the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups; and indirectly, through a parallel written consultation that has taken place. Once the working group has published its views, there will be a further period of consultation on its report. And it is worth emphasising that the working group is not a substitute for the normal planning processes. Before there could be any major runway development, at whatever site, a specific proposal would need to be worked out, with an opportunity for those with views to bring them forward.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, in the context of what I can say tonight, I cannot give him an absolute assurance about the linkage between the announcement of an application in respect of a fifth terminal by BAA and the elimination of the third runway option simply because there is no linkage between the two.

Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norris: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but it is 10.31 pm and I have only a minute in which to finish my reply.
Clearly no demand for a third runway is implicit in the application for the fifth terminal. I know that that will reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents.
This has been a useful debate, on an important subject, and one to which I am sure the House will return. Heathrow is a great British success story and a national asset, but of course a development of that size brings its difficulties, and these need to be addressed and solutions found. I hope what I have said this evening gives my hon. Friend confidence that, if and when BAA formally seeks permission to build a fifth terminal, there will be every opportunity for full discussion of its proposal. I hope, too, that I have been able to make it clear that the examination of possible further south-east runway development is a quite separate matter—a difficult but necessary exercise, the outcome of which I look forward to seeing in due course.
I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to tell all his constituents that, as ever, he has made an important representation on this vital subject of interest to them. My assurances will be paralleled by the attention which BAA, as applicants, will give to the representations that he makes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.